ALBERT DÁNGELO, AND FRANCES DÁNGELO, APPELLANTS,
v.
ORKIN EXTERMINATION CO. INC.; LUIS FELIPE MEJIA AND FRED MANNO, APPELLEES
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.
The court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict in a motor vehicle collision case where expert testimony created a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's rotator cuff injury was caused by the low-speed accident, but reversed and remanded for an additur limited to emergency room treatment expenses.
A directed verdict was properly denied where medical and biomechanical expert testimony created a factual dispute about whether a rotator cuff injury was caused by a low-speed motor vehicle collision.
[1] In a motor vehicle collision case, a directed verdict is properly denied when medical and biomechanical expert testimony creates a genuine factual dispute regarding wheth…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“traumatic rotator cuff tears occur when the patient falls with an outstretched arm and do not result merely from direct contact with the shoulder”
Defendant's medical expert explaining the mechanism of rotator cuff injuries and why the plaintiff's injury could not have been caused by the accident.
Plaintiffs Albert and Frances Dángelo were injured in a motor vehicle collision with a vehicle driven by defendants Luis Felipe Mejia and Fred Manno. …
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 Causation In Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict in this motor vehicle collision case. The record discloses evidence creating a conflict as to whether plaintiff suffered a permanent injury from the collision. In particular, defendant’s medical expert testified that plaintiffs rotator cuff injury could not have been caused by the accident. He explained that traumatic rotator cuff tears occur when the patient falls with an outstretched arm and do not result merely from direct contact with the shoulder. He added that plaintiff could not have suffered this injury from the way plaintiff described the accident — being thrown forward and striking his shoulder against the door, column or steering wheel. The medical expert’s opinion was supported by the testimony of the defense biomechanical engineer, who testified that this was a low-speed collision — 5 mph or less — between plaintiffs vehicle and the vehicle striking it, and that the actual movement of plaintiffs body resulting from this low speed collision would have been backward, not forward. The jury could reasonably have found from the combined testimony of these two experts that any rotator cuff injury resulted from a cause unconnected with the collision.
We do reverse the trial court’s order denying a new trial on the issue of medical expenses, however. As conceded by the defendant at oral argument, the trial court shall grant an additur for the amount of the initial emergency room treatment expenses only.
TAYLOR, J, and GRIMES, HUBERT L., Associate Judge, concur.