AQUILLA MCFARLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK ECKERD CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a new trial on damages was warranted due to misrepresentation of tax returns, but a new trial on liability was not required.
A pharmacist negligently filled a prescription, causing an eye injury. A jury awarded damages for lost business earnings, but the trial court granted …
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 Loss Of Earnings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An Eckerd pharmacist negligently filled McFarlin’s eye drop prescription with an ear drop solution. She suffered an eye injury when the product was administered according to instructions.
A jury returned a verdict finding that McFarlin had suffered $40,000 in damages based on a loss of business earnings. Eck-erd’s motion for a new trial was granted based on a finding by the trial court that the defendant had been “materially prejudiced by allowing a case to proceed to trial where there have been misrepresentations as to the existence of tax returns.” McFarlin, through her attorney, had allegedly misrepresented that no tax returns had been filed when, in fact, as was discovered after the trial, she had filed tax returns showing no income from her childcare business.
A personal injury plaintiff’s internal revenue tax returns are relevant evidence bearing on the issue of loss of earnings. Collins v. Farley, 147 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We, therefore, cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on damages. A party is not required to anticipate false testimony from an opposing party and a new trial is warranted, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, where it is shown that the prevailing party gave or used false testimony. Roberto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
We reverse the granting of a new trial on the uncontroverted liability issue. Where a jury finding on liability is not affected by an impropriety in the case on damages, a remand for a new trial on damages does not require a new trial on liability. Roma Constr. Co. v. Goodman, 557 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Central Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Greenberg, 418 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…tions are considered individually or collectively, defendant is entitled to a new trial. See Southern Trenching, Inc. v. Diago, 600 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Sledge v. Richards, 592 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); McFarlin v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Kline v. Belco, Ltd., 480 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Roberto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Gaiter v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 376 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). If during the proceedings below, tri…
-
S. Trenching, Inc. v. Diago, 600 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…al proceeding which is infected by conduct of this kind may or will be approved. Sledge v. Richards, 592 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and cases cited; Office Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McFarlin v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); see Smith v. University Medical Center, 559 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Under the circumstances presented, the denial of the defendant’s Rule 1.540 post-trial motion b…
-
Sledge v. George L. Richards, M.D., 592 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…y is not required to anticipate false testimony from an opposing party and a new trial is warranted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, where it is shown that the prevailing party gave or used false testimony.” McFarlin v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The record establishes that in his testimony, plaintiff Allen Sledge misrepresented his employment status and his physical condi [*317] tion at the time of trial. In addition, Sledge’s expert testified in reliance on that in…
Authorities Cited
- Everett A. Collins ad litem of the Estate of Elonzo P. Dann, Jr. v. Farley, 147 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Gonzalez v. State, 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lang v. Lang, 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Sheldon v. Tiernan (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Cent. Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Greenberg, 418 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Roma Constr. Co., Inc. v. Goodman, 557 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)