JULIAN E. LAUGHINGHOUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL AIELLO ET AL., APPELLEES
DOWNEY, Judge.
The trial court directed a verdict against appellant in the trial of his personal injury suit because the evidence failed to prove any of the threshold requirements of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act so as to entitle appellant to maintain this suit.
We have reviewed the evidence in detail and find that the testimony adduced by appellant and his medical witnesses was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether his medical expenses exceeded the one thousand dollar threshold required by § 627.737, F.S.1973. Allstate Insurance Company v. Ruiz, Fla.App.1974, 305 So. 2d 275. Accordingly, direction of a verdict was improper, necessitating reversal for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 534 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ely 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.…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)