Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

534 So. 2d 919, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2699, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5425, 1988 WL 131695

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1988

DocketNo. 88-1132

StatusPublished

This text of 534 So. 2d 919 (Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. United Services Automobile Ass'n) 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

Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 534 So. 2d 919, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2699, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5425, 1988 WL 131695 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the minor plaintiff Patricia Justino Rodriguez, by and through her mother and next friend, Ehra Rodriguez, and the plaintiff Ehra Rodriguez, individually, from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in an action to recover underinsured motorist benefits. The central point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of whether the minor plaintiff suffered a permanent injury in the automobile accident sued upon so as to avoid the no-fault threshold. See § 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). It is further urged that the jury verdict finding that the minor plaintiff had not suffered a permanent injury in the subject accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We disagree and affirm because, in our view, a jury question was presented on the above issue based on this record. First, the evidence is uncontradicted that the minor plaintiff resumed full activity following her recuperation from the surgery performed as a result of the accident involved in this case. Her ability to lead a normal life has not, to date, been impaired by the injuries she suffered in the subject accident. Second, the testimony of the plaintiffs’ two medical experts was arguably inconsistent as to the cause of a claimed permanent partial disability. The presence of these two factors, we think, justified the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ directed verdict motion, and entirely supports the ensuing jury verdict as well. See Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So.2d 641 (Fla.1964); LaBerge v. Vancleave, 13 F.L.W. 2393, — So.2d - (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 27, 1988); Tripp v. Killam, 492 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Laughinghouse v. Aiello, 320 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Martin v. Young, 443 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the minor plaintiff Patricia Justino Rodriguez, by and through her mother and next friend, Ehra Rodriguez, and the plaintiff Ehra Rodriguez, individually, from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in an action to recover underinsured motorist benefits. The central point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of whether the minor plaintiff suffered a permanent injury in the automobile accident sued upon so as to avoid the no-fault threshold. See § 627.737(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). It is further urged that the jury verdict finding that the minor plaintiff had not suffered a permanent injury in the subject accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We disagree and affirm because, in our view, a jury question was presented on the above issue based on this record. First, the evidence is uncontradicted that the minor plaintiff resumed full activity following her recuperation from the surgery performed as a result of the accident involved in this case. Her ability to lead a normal life has not, to date, been impaired by the injuries she suffered in the subject accident. Second, the testimony of the plaintiffs’ two medical experts was arguably inconsistent as to the cause of a claimed permanent partial disability. The presence of these two factors, we think, justified the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ directed verdict motion, and entirely supports the ensuing jury verdict as well. See Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So.2d 641 (Fla.1964); LaBerge v. Vancleave, 13 F.L.W. 2393, — So.2d - (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 27, 1988); Tripp v. Killam, 492 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Laughinghouse v. Aiello, 320 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Martin v. Young, 443 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 So. 2d 919, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2699, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5425, 1988 WL 131695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-ex-rel-rodriguez-v-united-services-automobile-assn-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack