GRETCHEN HAYS KWADER, APPELLANT,
v.
CANDACE PANDOLFO, 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.
In a negligence case arising from a rear-end collision, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on permanency of injury but granted a new trial on damages due to an allegedly inadequate jury award. The appellate court affirmed the new trial on damages but reversed the directed verdict on permanency, holding that conflicting expert testimony on permanency required the issue to go to the jury.
The directed verdict on permanency was erroneous because conflicting expert testimony created a genuine factual dispute that should have been decided by the jury. The new trial on damages only was properly granted, but the permanency issue must be presented to the jury on retrial. The trial court's reliance on Allstate Insurance Company v. Manasse to find the damages award inadequate was erroneous because the jury is free to award no future damages even in the presence of a permanent injury.
[1] A directed verdict should be affirmed only where, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the trier of fact could not have reasonably diff…
[2] Conflicting expert testimony regarding the permanency of an injury creates a question of fact for the jury.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 directed verdict should be affirmed only where, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the trier of fact could not have reasonably differed on the finding of essential material facts.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing directed verdicts on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee's vehicle was rear-ended by appellant's vehicle. Appellee claimed she suffered a permanent injury from the collision. At trial, the jury foun…
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 Permanency Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
This appeal is from an order granting a new trial on damages in this negligence action. Appellee’s vehicle was rear-ended by appellant’s vehicle, from which appellee contended that she suffered a permanent injury. At trial, the court directed a verdict for appellant on the issue of permanency, but granted a new trial on the issue of damages because the jury returned a verdict for $2400 for past damages in the light of medical bills totalling slightly more than $5000, and awarded nothing for future medical expenses and nothing for either past or future medical expenses.
The jury found appellant 100% negligent for causing the collision, and there is no basis for disturbing this finding on appeal. However, in the light of the conflicting evidence on the issue of permanency, the directed verdict was error. A directed verdict should be affirmed only where, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the trier of fact could not have reasonably differed on the finding of essential material facts. Laberge v. Vancleave, 534 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1989). Here there was conflicting evidence on the issue of permanency. Although appellee’s expert testified that appellant had sustained a permanent injury from this accident, appellant’s expert testified that he was not absolutely sure one way or the other that appellee had sustained a permanent injury, but thought that appellee had embellished her comments and had exaggerated her claims. Thus, the question of whether appellee had sustained a permanent injury was one for the jury. La-berge, supra and cases cited therein.
Since we agree that a new trial on damages only is warranted but that the issue of permanency must go to the jury, we affirm the order granting a new trial on damages only, but reverse the directed verdict on liability. However, we must point out that the trial court’s finding that the jury award was inadequate, based on the opinion in Allstate Insurance Company v. Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), was erroneous. See Allstate Insurance Company v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1998). The jury is free to believe that even in the presence of a permanent injury, an award of future damages is not required.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCOWN v. Est. OF Edna E. Seidell, 831 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…claimant’s expert testimony of permanent injuries. See also Weygant v. Fort Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1994). Even with a finding of permanent injury, the jury is free to reject an award of future damages. Kwader v. Pandolfo, 711 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In the same order rejecting a motion for a new trial, the trial court granted an additur, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages, with respect to the jury’s award of future medical expenses and future lost wages. The jur…
-
James v. City OF Tampa, 193 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…a jury question on the issue of. permanency. It. follows that the trial court erred in weighing the conflicting evidence on the issue of permanency and in directing a verdict on that issue in favor of the City. See id.; see also Kwader v. Pandolfo, 711 So. 2d 1382, 1383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on' permanency in favor of the defendant where there was conflicting evidence on that issue). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the final judgm…
-
Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury, 865 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ame general rule. McElroy v. Perry, 753 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Evans v. Montenegro, 728 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“Permanency determinations are generally made by juries.”), review denied, 741 So. 2d 1135 (Fla.1999); Kwader v. Pandolfo, 711 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Wolski v. Clark, 746 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Since reasonable minds could differ as to whether Mr. Clark sustained a permanent injury as the result of the accident, a question of fact existed which should have been…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Laberge v. Vancleave, 534 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)