CLARICE STEPHENS, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY E. RENARD, ET AL., 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.
Court affirmed admission of expert testimony regarding seat belt non-use to reduce damages but reversed reduction of damages for failure to obtain statutory personal injury protection.
Expert testimony that a plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt and that such non-use contributed to injuries is admissible to reduce damages, but damages cannot be reduced for failure to obtain statutorily required personal injury protection.
[1] Evidence that a plaintiff failed to use an available and fully operational seat belt may be admitted through expert testimony to reduce damages in a negligence action.
[2] A trial court may not reduce a plaintiff's damage award based on the plaintiff's failure to obtain statutorily required personal injury protection.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stephens was injured in a collision and sued for personal injuries. At trial, an expert testified based on the plaintiff's injuries and phys…
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 Personal Injury (Negligence) cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case. Appellant presents two issues on appeal. The first involves the trial court having permitted a person to testify as to his opinion as an expert regarding the use of a seat belt. In Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1984), the court held that evidence that a plaintiff failed to use an available and fully operational seat belt can be used to reduce the damages a negligent defendant would have to pay. Here, the expert testified that it was his opinion based upon the injuries suffered by the plaintiff and other physical evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Additionally, this engineer opined that if the plaintiff had been wearing a seat belt her injuries would have been less or nil. We find no error because there was insufficient objection and it does not appear the trial court abused his discretion in permitting the opinion testimony.
The second point is governed by Erie v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) which held that it is error to reduce a plaintiffs damage award for her failure to obtain the statutorily required personal injury protection. So, we reverse on this point and remand for entry of a corrected judgment in accordance with this decision.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1987)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 487 So. 2d 1079, (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), because of direct and express conflict with Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The district court reversed the trial court’s denial of…
-
Wells Fargo Armored Servs. & Corina Tacher v. Kearse, 575 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Stephens v. Renard, 487 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1986); Erie Insurance Company v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ward v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 364 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).…
-
Cases v. Gray, 894 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…in Holt, we disagree. On the authority of, and for the reasons well expressed in Holt, we hold that a PIP setoff is required and therefore reverse the judgment below for further consistent proceedings. Conflict is certified with Stephens v. Renard, 487 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1986) and Jedlicka v. Proctor, 724 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Erie Ins. Co. & Margaret Borman v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)