UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARITZA PEREZ, APPELLEE
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
MARITZA PEREZ, APPELLEE
622 So. 2d 486
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order denying defendant’s motion for new trial following a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor. The jury was entitled to render a finding contrary to the uncontradicted expert testimony regarding the permanency of plaintiff’s injury. Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1993); State Farm. Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 621 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court erred when it failed to sub mit the issue to the jury. The motion for new trial should have been granted.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Republic Servs. OF Fla., L.P. v. Poucher, 851 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…l court construed the rule of Easkold too narrowly and contrary to Florida law. A jury is free to reject even uncontradicted expert witness testimony. Id. at 497; Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1964); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Perez, 622 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 621 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Wynn v. Muffs, 617 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Likewise, a jury is entitled to weigh the credibility of a medical expert and a lay witness, to reje…
-
Harris Katz and Robert Katz v. Medhi Ghodsi and Valeria Ghodsi, 682 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…c., 640 So. 2d 1092,1094 (Fla.1994); Travieso v. Golden, 643 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review denied, 661 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1995); Rice v. Everett, 630 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perez, 622 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990). Here there was lay testimony, and a certain amount of expert testimony, which contradicted the plaintiffs position and/or supported d…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 637 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ctions to the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, because the trial court at the time it entered judgment, did not have the benefit of the Easkold decision. Similarly, in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perez, 622 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the opinion contains no facts, but the court reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions that it grant the defendant a new trial and permit issues of permanency of plaintiff’s injury to go to the jury. In Easkold, th…
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
- Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1993)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 621 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)