ERIN ROGERS
v.
WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.
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, a jury is free to accept, reject, or give appropriate weight to expert opinion testimony based on the expert's qualifications, reasoning, and all other evidence presented.
[1] In a negligence case, a jury is free to accept, reject, or weigh expert opinion testimony based on the expert's qualifications, the reasoning provided for the opinion, an…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 jury is free to weigh the opinion testimony of expert witnesses, and either accept, reject or give that testimony such weight as it deserves considering the witnesses' qualification, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all other evidence in the case, including lay testimony.”
Rule from Wald v. Grainger, 64 So. 3d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 2011), applied to affirm the judgment.
Erin Rogers appealed from a circuit court judgment in an action against Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. The case involved a negligence claim where expert t…
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 Jury'S Role In Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
June 5, 2024 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So. 3d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 2011) (“A jury is free to weigh the opinion testimony of expert witnesses, and either accept, reject or give that testimony such weight as it deserves considering the witnesses’ qualification, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all other evidence in the case, including lay testimony.”); see also Reid v. Med. & Pro. Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 744 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial because in an ordinary negligence case, the jury is free to accept or reject the testimony of a medical expert).
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and LONG, JJ., concur.
2
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wald v. Athena F. Grainger, 64 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2011)
- Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)