Smith v. Martin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Martin

707 So. 2d 924, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2271, 1998 WL 113572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1998

DocketNo. 97-0780

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 707 So. 2d 924 (Smith v. Martin) 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

Smith v. Martin, 707 So. 2d 924, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2271, 1998 WL 113572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a final judgment in which the jury found appellant to be grossly negligent when he ran over a co-worker in the employer’s truck. While appellant contends the facts do not reach the level of gross negligence, we are unable to say it was error to leave the issue with the jury.

Although appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict and subsequent motions on the issue of gross negligence, he is entitled to a new trial as the trial court erroneously admitted the conclusory opinion testimony of appellee’s expert attributing gross negligence to appellant. This was a question clearly for the jury, not for an expert’s opinion, as proscribed by Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County, 460 So.2d 879 (Fla.1984).

The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the danger of admitting this type of expert testimony is that “the jury may forego independent analysis of the facts and bow too readily to the opinion of and (sic) expert.” Angrand, v. Key, 667 So.2d 1146 (Fla.1995). Where the jury was faced with the difficult issue of determining a distinction between negligence and gross negligence, the error of admitting the expert’s opinion on what facts established gross negligence was particularly likely to influence the juries’ decision.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial based on the admission of the expert’s testimony.

GLICKSTEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a final judgment in which the jury found appellant to be grossly negligent when he ran over a co-worker in the employer’s truck. While appellant contends the facts do not reach the level of gross negligence, we are unable to say it was error to leave the issue with the jury.

Although appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict and subsequent motions on the issue of gross negligence, he is entitled to a new trial as the trial court erroneously admitted the conclusory opinion testimony of appellee’s expert attributing gross negligence to appellant. This was a question clearly for the jury, not for an expert’s opinion, as proscribed by Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County, 460 So.2d 879 (Fla.1984).

The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the danger of admitting this type of expert testimony is that “the jury may forego independent analysis of the facts and bow too readily to the opinion of and (sic) expert.” Angrand, v. Key, 667 So.2d 1146 (Fla.1995). Where the jury was faced with the difficult issue of determining a distinction between negligence and gross negligence, the error of admitting the expert’s opinion on what facts established gross negligence was particularly likely to influence the juries’ decision.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial based on the admission of the expert’s testimony.

GLICKSTEIN, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 So. 2d 924, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2271, 1998 WL 113572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-martin-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack