LATRICE PLA

v.

ASHLEY RIERSON, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 15, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0088 & 3D23-1712 Lower Tribunal No. 11-978-P ________________

Latrice Pla, Appellant,

vs.

Ashley Rierson, et al., Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James M. Barton, II, and Luis Garcia, Judges.

Boyd Richards Parker Colonnelli, PL, and John H. Richards (Fort Lauderdale) and Elaine D. Walter, for appellant.

Seiden Law, and Henry A. Seiden (Delray Beach), for appellee Ashley Rierson.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

BOKOR, J.

I.

BACKGROUND

The accident giving rise to the underlying trial and subsequent appeal occurred on a three-lane stretch of the U.S. 1 Highway in Monroe County, Florida. Ashley Rierson, the plaintiff below, was walking across the road at approximately⁸:20 Deveau, 273 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

1 We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

5

II.

ANALYSIS

A trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a matter of law reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Allen, 116 So. 3d 467, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). However, “[a] party moving for a directed verdict admits the truth of all facts in evidence and every reasonable conclusion or inference which can be drawn from such evidence favorable to the non-moving party.” Wald v. Grainger, 64 So. 3d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 2011). To the extent we review the new trial order, a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and “[t]rial court rulings on motions for new trial are given great deference on appeal.” Pena v. Vectour of Fla., Inc., 30 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); see also Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246, 1271 (Fla. 2006); Rierson, 273 So. 3d at 1043 n.2 (“Florida courts have noted ‘a stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than to reverse an order denying a motion for new trial.’” (citation omitted)). Evidentiary rulings, including decisions to admit or exclude evidence, are also reviewed for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., White v. State, 817 So. 2d 799, 806 (Fla. 2002).

A.

Motion for Directed Verdict

MasTec N. Am., Inc. v. Morakis, 288 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, two experts testified that, based on Pla’s own testimony and within a reasonable degree of scientific probability, Pla could have seen Rierson in the street, reacted, and steered the vehicle out of the way prior to impact. To the extent Pla’s driving speed is disputed, this uncertainty would not preclude a finding of liability, particularly given Dr. Cades’ testimony that Rierson would have been visible under the streetlights regardless of how far away Pla was prior to impact. Moreover, neither expert provided any testimony to support Pla’s contention that the accident was unavoidable, and her own mother (who was in the car at the time of the

II. Motion for New Trial

We also affirm the denial of the new trial order, as none of the alleged errors were harmful. As to this point, Pla primarily argues that the trial court

2 Additionally, Dr. Cades’ testimony didn’t violate either of the relevant exclusionary rulings, as the only exclusionary order encompassing the Florida Drivers’ Handbook did not explicitly apply to him (nor did he directly mention it in his testimony), and he did not actually reference the specific speed estimate of 55 mph from the Mariners’ Hospital records in his testimony (instead referring more generally to a 50-60 mph range, which Pla takes issue with apparently because this range averages out to the supposedly improper speed estimate of 55 mph from the hospital records).