DÁngelo v. Orkin Extermination Co.

826 So. 2d 413
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 31, 2002
DocketNo. 4D01-2523
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 826 So. 2d 413 (DÁngelo v. Orkin Extermination Co.) 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
DÁngelo v. Orkin Extermination Co., 826 So. 2d 413 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

FARMER, J.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict in this motor vehicle collision case. The record discloses evidence creating a conflict as to whether plaintiff suffered a permanent injury from the collision. In particular, defendant’s medical expert testified that plaintiffs rotator cuff injury could not have been caused by the accident. He explained that traumatic rotator cuff tears [414]*414occur when the patient falls with an outstretched arm and do not result merely from direct contact with the shoulder. He added that plaintiff could not have suffered this injury from the way plaintiff described the accident — being thrown forward and striking his shoulder against the door, column or steering wheel. The medical expert’s opinion was supported by the testimony of the defense biomechanical engineer, who testified that this was a low-speed collision — 5 mph or less — between plaintiffs vehicle and the vehicle striking it, and that the actual movement of plaintiffs body resulting from this low speed collision would have been backward, not forward. The jury could reasonably have found from the combined testimony of these two experts that any rotator cuff injury resulted from a cause unconnected with the collision.

We do reverse the trial court’s order denying a new trial on the issue of medical expenses, however. As conceded by the defendant at oral argument, the trial court shall grant an additur for the amount of the initial emergency room treatment expenses only.

TAYLOR, J, and GRIMES, HUBERT L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

Hisenaj v. Kuehner
903 A.2d 1068 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
826 So. 2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-orkin-extermination-co-fladistctapp-2002.