DELLA BURNS AND WILLIAM H. BURNS, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUTH MCLAUGHLIN SMITH AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a jury verdict finding Mr. Burns 75% comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt, holding that expert testimony on accident reconstruction is not required to establish the causal relationship between seat belt nonuse and injuries when the evidence shows the plaintiff was thrown from his seat and sustained head and neck injuries.
Expert testimony on accident reconstruction is not required to establish that failure to use an available and operational seat belt contributed to a plaintiff's injuries when the evidence shows the plaintiff was thrown from his seat and sustained head and neck injuries.
[1] Expert testimony on accident reconstruction is not required to establish that failure to use an available and operational seat belt contributed to a plaintiff's injuries…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 failure to use an available and operational seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of plaintiff's damages”
The court quoted the standard from Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis to explain what the jury could properly infer from the evidence.
Mr. and Mrs. Burns were injured in an automobile accident. Mr. Burns did not wear a seat belt and was thrown from his seat following the impact, susta…
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 Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. William H. Burns, appeal in this automobile accident case from a jury verdict assessing damages of $37,000 in favor of Mr. Burns and $5,000 in favor of Mrs. Burns and determining that Mr. Burns was seventy-five percent comparatively negligent for failing to wear his seat belt. We affirm.
Mr. Burns contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the evidence did not adequately support the jury’s determination that his failure to use a seat belt made him seventy-five percent comparatively negligent. His contention is to the effect that without any testimony from an accident reconstruction expert there could have been no finding in this case of the requisite causal relationship between the nonuse of a seat belt and the injuries. We do not agree. See Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1984). The evidence showed that Mr. Burns did not use a seat belt and that he was thrown from his seat in the car following the impact. He received head and neck injuries. Under the circumstances of this case we do not believe it was beyond the province of the jury from its common knowledge to conclude that “the failure to use an available and operational seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of plaintiff’s damages_” Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d at 454.
We do not find merit in the additional contention on appeal.
Affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1996)…tely analyzed as an issue of comparative negligence. See, e.g., First Southern Ins. Co. v. Block, 567 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990); Burns v. Smith, 476 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Meros & Chaisson, supra, at 12-14 (cases discussed therein). In Parker v. Montgomery, 529 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988), the First District held that the concept of avoidable cons…
-
Houghton v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…f sustained injury by being ejected from a motor vehicle following an accident. It reasoned that whether the plaintiffs injuries in such case resulted from the failure to wear his seatbelt would be within the province of the jury. In Burns v. Smith, 476 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the plaintiff sustained, as in the case at hand, an impact-related injury. The jury apportioned 75% of. the plaintiffs injuries to his failure to wear a seatbelt. The Second District specifically rejected the plaintiffs contentio…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Michaelyn Smith, 565 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…sfully obtained an order excluding the appellant’s accident reconstruction expert from the trial based on the expert's failure to make himself available for deposition a reasonable time before trial.1 Appellant contended, relying on Burns v. Smith, 476 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), that expert testimony was not required to establish the plaintiff’s back injury was caused by or exacerbated by the failure to wear her seat belt. In Burns, a jury had found 75% comparative negligence against the plaintiff, who w…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984)