Florida Appeals Court: Accident Victim’s Confusion on the Stand Not a “Dismissal” of His Case
In bringing a Florida personal injury lawsuit, you need to do more than prove the defendant caused your accident. You also need to prove your “damages,” i.e., the financial and other losses you suffered as a direct result of that accident. Proof of damages can include both testimony from yourself or others–such as your doctor–as well as documentation like medical bills.
New Trial Allowed on Damages for Back Pain
A recent decision from the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal, Reina v. Klisivitch, addressed a scenario where the trial judge took the plaintiff’s testimony regarding one of his injuries as proof that he was “dismissing” that part of his personal injury claim. The Sixth District held that was a legal error, and as a result held the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial but only on the issue of damages.
Here is what happened. The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with the defendant. Afterwards, the plaintiff went to the emergency room, where he complained of pain in his back, chest, and ribs. A follow-up visit to a specialist confirmed that the plaintiff suffered “significant disc herniation and a bulging disc,” which required surgery.
The plaintiff then filed his personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging his negligence was the cause of the accident and the plaintiff’s resulting neck and back injuries. While testifying at trial, the plaintiff said that the doctors in the emergency room initially diagnosed him with a neck injury. This led to some confusion as to whether the plaintiff experienced any back pain. During cross-examination, the defendant’s lawyer asked, “So the only injury that you’re claiming [from the accident is] a neck injury, right?” The plaintiff said, “Yes,” but that he still experienced pain in other parts of his body as “side effects.” But on redirect, the plaintiff reiterated that he did complain of back pain when he first went to the emergency room.
Based on this testimony, the defendant’s attorney asked the trial judge to bar the plaintiff from presenting any evidence about his back injury to the jury. The defense’s position was that the plaintiff’s answers constituted a “voluntary dismissal” of his claim for damages related to any back pain. The judge granted the motion, effectively issuing a directed verdict for the defense on that issue.
The jury ultimately found the defendant 80 percent at-fault for the accident but that the plaintiff suffered no “permanent injury” and therefore received no damages.
On appeal, the Sixth District said the plaintiff “did not dismiss his back injury claim,” and the trial judge therefore acted improperly in acting as if he did. Indeed, the appellate court noted, “At no time during his testimony did [the plaintiff] state that he was dismissing or withdrawing any portion of his claim.” Basically, what happened was that the plaintiff got confused by the defense attorney’s question. He believed that his back pain was a side effect of the neck injury. That did not mean he was dismissing his claim for damages related to his back pain.
As previously noted, the Sixth District ordered a retrial solely on the issue of damages, during which a new jury can hear evidence related to the plaintiff’s back pain. The original jury’s findings regarding liability for the accident stand. One judge on the appeals panel disagreed, stating they would have granted the plaintiff a new trial on both liability and damages.
Contact a Miami Car Accident Lawyer Today
It is easy to get confused when dealing with the legal aftermath of a serious car accident. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Miami car accident lawyer who will aggressively defend your rights in court. Contact Pita Weber Del Prado in Miami today at 305-670-2889 to schedule a free consultation.
Source:
6dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2456027/opinion/Opinion_2023-2550.pdf
