H. K. CORPORATION D/B/A NATIONAL HOTEL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF GEORGE W. MILLER AND HELEN MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A hotel appeals a jury verdict finding it negligent for injuries sustained in a diving accident at its pool. The court affirmed, holding that the hotel violated a regulation requiring minimum water depth for diving boards, which constituted negligence per se, and that the trial court properly denied the directed verdict motion and admitted expert testimony.
The court held that the trial court correctly denied the directed verdict motion because sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the decedent's injuries were proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. Expert testimony was properly admitted because the sufficiency of underlying facts is a matter of weight, not admissibility, and the defendant presented no refuting evidence. The regulation was properly applied prospectively, and the trial court properly instructed the jury that the hotel's violation of the minimum water depth regulation constituted negligence per se because the regulation was designed to protect pool divers from hitting the bottom.
[1] A trial court correctly denies a motion for directed verdict when sufficient evidence exists for a jury to conclude that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the…
[2] The sufficiency of facts required for an expert witness to form an opinion is generally a question of weight, not admissibility, unless the opposing party presents eviden…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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”
Establishes the standard for admitting expert testimony based on underlying factual sufficiency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe decedent was injured in a diving accident at the defendant hotel's swimming pool in 1974. The hotel's diving facilities did not comply with an adm…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Regulation Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
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 section 514.02, Florida Statutes (1961) and renumbered without change in 1969, was applied prospectively to defendant’s diving facilities as they existed in 1974, when the decedent’s mishap occurred; (4) the trial court properly instructed the jury that the hotel’s violation of the regulation (which requires public swimming pools to have a minimum water depth for diving boards commensurate with the height of the board) was negligence per se as this rule obligated the hotel to protect a particular class of persons (swimming pool divers), from a particular type of harm (hitting the bottom of the pool), deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973); Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Cf. Schulte v. Gold, 360 So. 2d 428 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1979) (statute requiring public lodging and food service establishments to be properly plumbed, lighted, heated, cooled and ventilated was designed to protect public in general); Kelly v. Koppers Co., Inc., 293 So. 2d 763 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 302 So. 2d 415 (Fla.1974) (statute requiring floors and walls of pools to be light in color was promulgated for purposes of sanitation, health and cleanliness, not the protection of a class of persons).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ricardo O. Gershanik, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ay, 397 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The sufficiency of the facts required to form an opinion is usually decided by the expert; any deficiency relates to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. H.K. Cory. v. Estate of Miller, 405 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Dr. Gershanik next argues that the Hearing Officer and the Board erred in declaring his actions within the purview of the statute’s proscriptions. Again, we disagree. The construction of a statute by the administrative agency en…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armadillo P'rs, Inc., 849 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2003)…s improper where trial court excluded expert testimony due to expert’s inability to testify as to exact cause of elevator malfunction, as the deficiency in the expert’s testimony related to weight, not admissibility); H.K. Corp. v. Estate of Miller, 405 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that the testimony of plaintiffs’s expert witness was properly admitted into evidence on the basis that the sufficiency of the facts required to form an opinion must normally be decided by the expert himself and any…
-
Lombard v. Executive Elevator Serv., Inc., 545 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…or the expert opinion. We agree. The trial court’s interrogation of Lombard’s counsel and the expert witness related only to the weight to be given the opinion testimony of Mr. White and not to its admissibility. See H.K. Corp. v. Estate of Miller, 405 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (sufficiency of the facts required to form an opinion would normally be decided by the expert himself; any deficiency related to weight rather than admissibility of his opinion). It is exclusively a function of the trier of fact t…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- In re Transition Rule 15, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)
- Quinn v. Truman Alan Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Tiny's Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Fla. Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Schulte v. Gold, 360 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 293 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 302 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1974)
- MacIas v. State, 302 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1974)