Summary
upholding trial court's denial of motion for new trial, which had been predicated on the argument that the jury's verdict had been contrary to manifest weight of the evidence, even though jury had apparently rejected the sole expert's uncontradicted testimony on causation
Summary of this case from Reid v. Medical Prof. Mgt. ConOpinion
No. 92-00093.
April 28, 1993.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Bay County, Don Sirmons, J.
Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin Perwin, P.A., Miami, and Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin McLeod, Pensacola, for appellants.
John N. Boggs of Boggs Thompson, James B. Fensom and Michael J. Hauversburk, Panama City, for appellees.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order denying appellants' motion for new trial following final judgment entered on a jury verdict finding that appellant William L. Wynn did not suffer a permanent impairment as a result of an automobile accident. Appellants contend that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because the sole expert's testimony on causation was uncontradicted.
A jury may accept, reject, or give expert testimony the weight they think it deserves. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 2.2(b). Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1993). Where reasonable persons could differ as to whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court properly denied the motion for new trial. Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1964); Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So.2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), review denied, 529 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1988).
Accordingly, we affirm.
BOOTH, SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.