BOYD B. FARNES, APPELLANT,
v.
E.R. SQUIBB AND SONS, INC., CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES, INC., AND HENRY SCHEIN, INC., 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.
Boyd Farnes appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial in a products liability case involving an influenza vaccine that allegedly caused Guillain-Barré Syndrome. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by substituting its judgment for the jury's verdict on conflicting expert testimony regarding the adequacy of vaccine warnings.
The trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial and rejecting the jury's verdict. Trial court judges do not have discretion to substitute their judgment for that of a jury regarding conflicting testimony of expert medical witnesses, particularly when both parties presented expert testimony on causation.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial when reasonable persons cannot differ that the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evide…
[2] Where parties present conflicting expert testimony regarding causation, the jury is responsible for resolving and weighing that testimony.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court may not properly grant a motion for a new trial where reasonable persons cannot differ that the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard governing when trial courts may grant motions for new trials based on manifest weight of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarnes received an influenza vaccine manufactured by Connaught Laboratories, Inc., sold by E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., and distributed by Henry Schein, …
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 Conflicting Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Opinion of this Court filed on December 20, 1995, is vacated and this Opinion is substituted in its stead.
Boyd B. Fames (hereinafter “Fames”) appeals a trial court order granting a new trial in a products liability action. We reverse.
Fames received an injection of an influenza vaccine manufactured by Connaught Laboratories, Inc., sold by E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., and distributed by Henry Schein, Inc. in October of 1989. Shortly thereafter, Fames contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) — a rare and severely crippling neurological disorder. At trial, each party had an expert witness testify concerning the adequacy of the warning language included in the package insert which came with the vaccine.
Specifically, the experts testified as to whether or not the language in the package insert adequately warned physicians about the risk of patients contracting GBS from an injection of the influenza vaccine. Following this and other testimony, the jury determined that the warning language was inadequate and, consequently, awarded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court ordered a new trial based upon its conclusion that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
A trial court may not properly grant a motion for a new trial where reasonable persons cannot differ that the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108, 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Where, as in the instant case, each party had an expert witness testify at trial regarding causation, it is for the jury to resolve and weigh the conflicting testimony. Oakes v. Pittsburgh Coming Corp., 546 So. 2d 427, 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Trial court judges do not have the discretion to substitute their judgment for that of the jury in regard to the conflicting testimony of expert medical witnesses. North Dade Golf, Inc. v. Clarke, 439 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984).
Here, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial and rejecting the jury’s determination that the warning language was inadequate. Case v. Bentley, 527 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 398 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to reinstate the jury verdict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Boyd B. Farnes, 697 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1997)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Farnes v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 667 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), which conflicts with Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Fames. Boyd Fames worked at a drug rehabilitation clinic in the Florida Keys, and because his work ent…
-
VAN v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013)…[tjrial court judges do not have the discretion to substitute their judgment for that of the jury in regard to the conflicting testimony of expert medical witnesses.” E.R. Squibb & Sons, 697 So. 2d at 826 (quoting Farnes v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 667 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)). This Court quashed the district court’s decision and explained that although it is “a jury function to evaluate the credibility of any given witness,” the trial judge “can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weigh…
Authorities Cited
- Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Oakes v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 546 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Meagher v. State, 439 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- N. Dade Golf, Inc. v. Clarke, 439 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Denson v. State, 527 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Case v. Bentley, 527 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)