Bucholc v. Kent

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

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.

Footnotes

1

. See Josephson v. Bowers, 595 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).