NEIL DIXON, APPELLANT,
v.
RIVER CITY BREWING COMPANY, A FLORIDA 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 trial court erred in excluding expert testimony solely because it lacked a factual basis, and should not have set aside the jury verdict.
Appellant obtained a jury verdict in a slip and fall case. The trial court set aside the verdict, finding the expert witness's testimony inadmissible …
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 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellant Neil Dixon obtained a jury verdict in this slip and fall ease against appellee River City Brewing Company. The trial court ruled on various post-trial motions, and reasoning that the testimony of Dixon’s expert witness was inadmissible and that he should not have been allowed to testify, set aside the jury verdict, granted River City’s motion for directed verdict, and entered judgment in favor of River City. Dixon argues on appeal that the trial court erred and that the jury verdict should be reinstated. We agree.1
In the trial court’s Amended Final Judgment Setting Aside Verdict and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict, the trial court reasoned that the witness, a mechanical engineer testifying as an accident reconstruction expert, visited the scene for only a short time without performing any tests or taking measurements, and lacked a factual basis for his speculative testimony. An expert’s testimony is “subject to impeachment or to having its weight reduced because of its failure to properly consider one of the many factors that may influence an opinion ..., but that failure should not prevent the opinion’s admission, nor cause its complete exclusion from the jury’s consideration.” Florida Dep’t of Transp. v. Armadillo Partners, Inc., 849 So. 2d 279, 287-88 (Fla. 2003).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s amended final judgment and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
LEWIS, J., and COLLINS, JULIAN E., Associate Judge, concur. . We have considered the merits of River City's argument that the trial court erred by denying its motion for remittitur, but reject it without further comment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Doctors Co. v. State, 940 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ure to properly consider one of the many factors that may influence an opinion ..., but that failure should not prevent the opinion’s admission, nor cause its complete exclusion from the jury’s consideration.” Accord Dixon v. River City Brewing Co., 904 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In regard to the Department’s argument that TDC should be bound by the admission made by it in its answer to the complaint that the agreements were unambiguous and should be enforced pursuant to their clear terms, it shoul…
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ces where it appears that the trial court’s order may be correct, or when the state attempts to correct the error by submitting portions of the record in an appendix attached to its response in the appellate proceedings. See, e.g., Bennett v. State, 904 So. 2d 447, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“In denying a legally sufficient 3.800(a) motion, the trial court’s failure to attach portions of the record refuting the defendant’s claim is reversible error, and the State cannot cure this error by providing the records…
-
Bennett v. State, 946 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…lt, we reversed the trial court’s order and on remand instructed the trial court to address this court’s decision in Richardson v. State, 884 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), quashed by State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2005). Bennett v. State, 904 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Following its decision in Richardson, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this court’s earlier decision in Bennett and remanded this case for reconsideration. Because appellant stated a legally sufficient claim, which was not…
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
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armadillo P'rs, Inc., 849 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2003)