Kent v. Bucholc

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kent v. Bucholc

714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9768

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1998

DocketNos. 97-2234, 97-2235

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 714 So. 2d 671 (Kent v. Bucholc) 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

Kent v. Bucholc, 714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9768 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee plaintiff suffered a low back injury as a result of an automobile accident, and his experts testified that he had a permanent injury and would incur medical expenses in the future. The jury awarded appellee $13,-000 in past medical expenses and $50,000 in future medical expenses, but found that he did not sustain a permanent injury. Appellant defendant argues that because there was no finding of permanency, the award of future medical is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court should have granted a new trial. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for new trial. See Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla.l995)(a finding of permanent injury is not a prerequisite for an award of future economic damages). We find the other issues raised by appellant are without merit. Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee plaintiff suffered a low back injury as a result of an automobile accident, and his experts testified that he had a permanent injury and would incur medical expenses in the future. The jury awarded appellee $13,-000 in past medical expenses and $50,000 in future medical expenses, but found that he did not sustain a permanent injury. Appellant defendant argues that because there was no finding of permanency, the award of future medical is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court should have granted a new trial. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for new trial. See Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla.l995)(a finding of permanent injury is not a prerequisite for an award of future economic damages). We find the other issues raised by appellant are without merit. Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 671, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-bucholc-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack