HK Corp. v. Estate of MillerHK Corp. v. Estate of Miller
Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman, Greer & Weil and Scott D. Sheftall, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (appellees herein) for personal injuries sustained by plaintiffs’ decedent in a diving accident is affirmed upon a holding that (1) the trial court correctly denied the defendant‘s motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs’ case on the issue of liability. This issue was properly submitted for determination as there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to conclude, as it ultimately did, that the decedent‘s injuries were proximately caused by the defendant‘s negligence, Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977); Tiny‘s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (2) the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert witness was properly admitted into evidence on the basis that (a) the sufficiency of the facts required to form an opinion must normally be decided by the expert himself and any deficiency relates to the weight rather than the admissibility of the expert‘s opinion, and (b) defendant presented no testimony or evidence to refute the adequacy of the underlying data. Quinn v. Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); (3) the administrative regulation at issue, first promulgated in 1962 pursuant to
Affirmed.