Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chnurer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chnurer

627 So. 2d 611, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12404, 1993 WL 513164

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2219

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 611 (Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chnurer) 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

Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chnurer, 627 So. 2d 611, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12404, 1993 WL 513164 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The parties to a negligence action appeal and cross-appeal the trial court’s order granting a new trial on the issue of tort damages and denying a new trial on the issue of comparative negligence. We reverse the order to the extent that it grants a new trial on tort damages, on the authority of the very recent decision in Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla.1993), and otherwise affirm the order. We wish to note, however, our disagreement with two decisions upon which the appellee has relied, Holmes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 624 So.2d 824 (Fla.2d DCA 1993), and Jarrell v. Churm, 611 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We find these opinions inconsistent with the supreme court’s opinion in Easkold, which does not restrict the bases for a jury’s rejecting the opinion of an expert witness to the three grounds set out in Jarrell and quoted in Holmes.

WOLF and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

The parties to a negligence action appeal and cross-appeal the trial court’s order granting a new trial on the issue of tort damages and denying a new trial on the issue of comparative negligence. We reverse the order to the extent that it grants a new trial on tort damages, on the authority of the very recent decision in Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla.1993), and otherwise affirm the order. We wish to note, however, our disagreement with two decisions upon which the appellee has relied, Holmes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 624 So.2d 824 (Fla.2d DCA 1993), and Jarrell v. Churm, 611 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We find these opinions inconsistent with the supreme court’s opinion in Easkold, which does not restrict the bases for a jury’s rejecting the opinion of an expert witness to the three grounds set out in Jarrell and quoted in Holmes.

WOLF and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 611, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12404, 1993 WL 513164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-department-of-highway-safety-motor-vehicles-v-chnurer-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack