Hicks v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.Hicks v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
John A. Forgas, III of Saalfield, Catlin & Forgas, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
James C. Hicks appeals the denials of his motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict and his motion for new trial following a jury verdict in favor of appellees in this negligence action. We affirm.
We find that the judgment here is supported by competent substantial evidence. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant‘s motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict. Jones v. Rives, 680 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Further, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant‘s motion for new trial on the two issues raised. Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988). First, as a result of the appellant‘s self-contradictory testimony, we find an adequate basis in the record for the jury to have rejected appellant‘s testimony relating to the existence and extent of his continuing pain. Thus, the jury had a sound basis to reject the expert medical testimony based upon appellant‘s subjective complaints of pain. Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.