EDITH M. AIKEN, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY MILLER ET AL., 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.
Affirmed jury verdict awarding $3,000 for automobile accident injuries; trial court properly excluded chiropractor's opinion testimony on causation of vision problems due to lack of foundation and qualifications.
A trial court properly excludes expert testimony from a chiropractor regarding causation of vision problems when no foundation is laid for the witness's qualifications in that area and the proffered answer is unresponsive.
[1] Expert testimony from a chiropractor regarding causation of vision problems may be excluded when the witness lacks demonstrated qualifications in ophthalmology or optomet…
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 intelligenceEdith M. Aiken was injured in an automobile accident and brought suit for damages. The jury awarded her $3,000 in damages.…
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 Foundation For Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Edith M. Aiken, brings this appeal from a jury verdict which awarded her $3,000.00 for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The jury had the opportunity to hear all the evidence in this case to evaluate same, and we find no reason for setting aside the jury’s determination of the case. The only matter which we feel concerns comment by this Court is the decision of the trial court to not allow one, Dr. Kuhn, a chiropractor, to give his opinion as, whether based upon reasonable medical probability, a change in Mrs. Aiken’s eyesight after the accident was a result of the automobile accident. We feel that the trial court properly sustained the objection to the question on the basis that a proper predicate had not been laid and there had been no testimony as to the qualifications of Dr. Kuhn to testify on problems related to eyes or vision. In addition, we note that the answer which Dr. Kuhn proffered to the question was not responsive. Last, even if error had been committed in not allowing Dr. Kuhn to testify, such was harmless because the appellant presented for the consideration of the jury the testimony of an optometrist who opined that her vision problems were probably related to the automobile accident.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trend Coin Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 487 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1986)…With all of this substantially similar evidence before the jury, the trial judge’s exclusion of one more calculation to produce the same figure of approximately $500,000 for the loss must, if error, be considered harmless error. See Aiken v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), where the court held that the trial court’s exclusion of an expert’s testimony on causation of an eye injury was at best harmless error because another expert testified that the eye injury was probably related to the accident.…
-
Horowitz v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 343 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ies are to areas of the body within his permitted practice and his education, training and expertise. For example, the First District Court of Appeal held that a chiropractor was not competent to testify in respect to an eye injury. Aiken v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). We agree. Moreover, we must also recognize that the weight and credibility to be given the chiropractic testimony, as with any expert testimony, is a matter for the finder of fact. As a caveat here we point out that in the past…
-
State v. Alvarez, 490 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…testimony were otherwise brought to the jury’s attention. See Corbett v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 375 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1202 (Fla.1980); Connell v. Green, 330 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Aiken v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence