PATRICIA JUSTINO RODRIGUEZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, EHRA RODRIGUEZ, AND EHRA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this underinsured motorist benefits case, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict on whether the minor plaintiff suffered a permanent injury sufficient to avoid the no-fault threshold under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict finding no permanent injury, holding that the evidence presented a jury question rather than a matter requiring judgment as a matter of law.
The trial court did not err in denying the directed verdict motion because the evidence presented a jury question on the permanency of injury issue. The jury was properly permitted to decide the matter based on the conflicting evidence regarding the permanency of the injury and the inconsistency in the medical testimony.
[1] A jury question is presented on the issue of permanent injury when the plaintiff resumes full activity following recuperation from surgery and the ability to lead a norma…
[2] A directed verdict on the issue of permanent injury is not warranted when the testimony of medical experts is arguably inconsistent regarding the cause of a claimed perma…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a jury question was presented on the above issue based on this record”
Establishes that the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question precluding directed verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor plaintiff, Patricia Justino Rodriguez, was injured in an automobile accident and underwent surgery as a result. Following her recuperation fro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse No-Fault Threshold cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)
- Martin v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Ward v. State, 492 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Tripp v. Killam, 492 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Laughinghouse v. Aiello, 320 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)