All American Pool Surface, Inc. v. Jordan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

All American Pool Surface, Inc. v. Jordan

870 So. 2d 885, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3302, 2004 WL 575713

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-309

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 870 So. 2d 885 (All American Pool Surface, Inc. v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

All American Pool Surface, Inc. v. Jordan, 870 So. 2d 885, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3302, 2004 WL 575713 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether the testimony of the forensic accountant concerning plaintiffs loss of future earning ability was so based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions that a new trial should have been ordered by the trial court. The expert’s figures, not finalized until shortly before her testimony and calculated without discussing them with plaintiff or reading his deposition, assumed [886]*886incorrectly that plaintiff, an hourly rate employee, received the private use of a company car, sick leave, and paid vacations. She further based her testimony on the costs of benefits, including the cost of worker’s compensation protection, cost of uniforms, and cost for the work-related use of a vehicle paid by the employer. Obviously, if plaintiff is being compensated for the rest of his work life for the income he would have received had he worked full time, then the future use of a uniform, which he would no longer have to wear, the future use of a work-related vehicle, which he would no longer have to drive, or the cost of unemployment protection, when he is no longer concerned with being unemployed, is immaterial.

Because we agree that the expert’s testimony was based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions, we reverse for a new trial on the issue of lost earning ability.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether the testimony of the forensic accountant concerning plaintiffs loss of future earning ability was so based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions that a new trial should have been ordered by the trial court. The expert’s figures, not finalized until shortly before her testimony and calculated without discussing them with plaintiff or reading his deposition, assumed [886]*886incorrectly that plaintiff, an hourly rate employee, received the private use of a company car, sick leave, and paid vacations. She further based her testimony on the costs of benefits, including the cost of worker’s compensation protection, cost of uniforms, and cost for the work-related use of a vehicle paid by the employer. Obviously, if plaintiff is being compensated for the rest of his work life for the income he would have received had he worked full time, then the future use of a uniform, which he would no longer have to wear, the future use of a work-related vehicle, which he would no longer have to drive, or the cost of unemployment protection, when he is no longer concerned with being unemployed, is immaterial.

Because we agree that the expert’s testimony was based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions, we reverse for a new trial on the issue of lost earning ability.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 So. 2d 885, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3302, 2004 WL 575713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/all-american-pool-surface-inc-v-jordan-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack