MANUEL MENDEZ, SANTA MENDEZ, ADALY MENDEZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND ELSA VIVIAN MACHADO, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUANA LOPEZ, ETC., 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in denying the directed verdict motion due to conflicting evidence on vicarious liability or in admitting expert testimony on seatbelt issues.
When conflicting evidence exists on vicarious liability, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a directed verdict motion, and the admission of expert testimony on seatbelt issues is within the trial court's discretion.
[1] When conflicting evidence exists regarding vicarious liability, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for directed verdict.
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 intelligencePlaintiffs Manuel Mendez, Santa Mendez, Adaly Mendez (a minor), and Elsa Vivian Machado appealed an adverse final judgment and the denial of post-tria…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs appeal from an adverse final judgment and from the denial of several post-trial motions.
We affirm finding no reversible error.
First, because there was conflicting evidence presented regarding the issue of vicarious liability, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict. Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A., 531 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)(“In ruling on the motion [for directed verdict], the trial court may not weigh the evidence or assess a witness’s credibility and must deny the motion if evidence is conflicting or if different conclusions or inferences can be drawn from it.”); LR Ambassador Assocs., Ltd. v. Andrews, 492 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Additionally, we find that the trial court acted wholly within its discretion when it permitted the presentation of the defense’s seatbelt expert’s testimony. Gershanik v. Department of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med. Examiners, 458 So. 2d 302, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(“On appeal a trial court’s determination of the competency of expert testimony will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”), review denied, 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985).
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bath Club Ent., LLC v. THE Residences at the Bath Club Maint. Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- IDY Corp. v. Freedman, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Ricardo O. Gershanik, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, JR., M.D., P.A., 531 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- LR Ambassador Assocs., Ltd. v. Andrews, 492 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)