Using Expert Witnesses to Prove Future Damages in a Florida Car Accident Lawsuit

Expert witnesses are often used in Florida personal injury cases to assist plaintiffs in proving elements of their case. For example, in a complex accident involving multiple vehicles, the plaintiff might retain an expert in accident reconstruction to help establish the defendant’s liability. Similarly, an expert witness might be called to offer an opinion regarding the plaintiff’s future damages arising from an accident.

Florida court rules require the disclosure of all expert witnesses prior to trial. This allows the other side an opportunity to scrutinize and possibly challenge the admissibility of the expert’s opinions at trial. Ultimately, the role of the expert witness is to assist the jury in understanding technical issues that are beyond a layperson’s normal comprehension. This is separate from the role of a fact witness, who is simply there to testify as to what they personally saw or did.

Sixth District Orders New Trial on “Future Damages”

Some witnesses do blur the line between expert and fact witnesses. One common example is a physician who personally treats an accident victim. A treating physician may testify as to what steps they took to personally diagnose and treat the plaintiff for their injuries. But such evidence can “cross over” the line into expert testimony.

A recent decision from the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal, Richardson v. Tenery, illustrates how this distinction may play an important role in a personal injury trial. This case involved a car accident. The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in said accident. At trial, the plaintiff’s treating physician testified as a “non-retained expert” regarding causation and damages.

Of particular note, the physician offered testimony regarding the likely costs of the plaintiff’s future care and treatment. The defense argued this was expert testimony, the type that a “life care planner” would give. The physician conceded he would have given similar testimony had be retained as a life care planner but insisted he was only testifying in this case based on his personal treatment of the plaintiff.

The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding over $2.7 million, the bulk of which was for future medical expenses and future pain and suffering.

On appeal, the Sixth District ordered a new trial on these future damages. The appellate court agreed with the defense that the treating physician was, in fact, an undisclosed expert witness. In presenting an estimate of future medical costs, the physician “exceeded the scope of a fact witness treating physician and crossed the line into expert testimony.” The Sixth District said this unfairly prejudiced the defendant’s ability to properly cross-examine the witness, which was why a new trial was necessary.

Contact a Miami Car Accident Lawyer Today

Proving liability and damages in a personal injury case is often more complicated than accident victims realize. That is why it is essential to work with an experienced Miami car accident lawyer who can assist you in building a compelling case. Contact Pita Weber Del Prado today at 305-670-2889 to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2469470/opinion/Opinion_2023-2853.pdf