Bucholc v. Kent

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bucholc v. Kent

666 So. 2d 275, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 303, 1996 WL 15487

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1996

DocketNo. 94-3506

StatusPublished

This text of 666 So. 2d 275 (Bucholc v. Kent) 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

Bucholc v. Kent, 666 So. 2d 275, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 303, 1996 WL 15487 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand this case for a new trial on damages (liability was admitted), because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it would have to find a permanent injury in order for plaintiff to be able to recover future economic damages. Although that instruction conformed to the law at that time in this district,¹ the Florida Supreme Court subsequently held to the contrary in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla.1995). Although this error would normally only require a new trial on future economic damages, we have concluded that the new trial should be on all damages, because a comment made by the trial court regarding an expert could have affected the jury’s perception of the expert’s credibility.

Reversed.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand this case for a new trial on damages (liability was admitted), because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it would have to find a permanent injury in order for plaintiff to be able to recover future economic damages. Although that instruction conformed to the law at that time in this district,¹ the Florida Supreme Court subsequently held to the contrary in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla.1995). Although this error would normally only require a new trial on future economic damages, we have concluded that the new trial should be on all damages, because a comment made by the trial court regarding an expert could have affected the jury’s perception of the expert’s credibility.

Reversed.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

666 So. 2d 275, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 303, 1996 WL 15487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bucholc-v-kent-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack