Burns v. Smith, 85-20
| Decision Date | 04 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-20,85-20 |
| Citation | 476 So.2d 278,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2284 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2284 Della BURNS and William H. Burns, Appellants, v. Ruth McLaughlin SMITH and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Harold S. Smith, II of Vega, Brown, Nichols, Stanley & Martin, Naples, for appellants.
Ronald L. Napier, Naples, John W. MacKay, Tampa, for appellees.
Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. William H. Burns, appeal in this automobile accident case from a jury verdict assessing damages of $37,000 in favor of Mr. Burns and $5,000 in favor of Mrs. Burns and determining that Mr. Burns was seventy-five percent comparatively negligent for failing to wear his seat belt. We affirm.
Mr. Burns contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the evidence did not adequately support the jury's determination that his failure to use a seat belt made him seventy-five percent comparatively negligent. His contention is to the effect that without any testimony from an accident reconstruction expert there could have been no finding in this case of the requisite causal relationship between the nonuse of a seat belt and the injuries. We do not agree. See Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984). The evidence showed that Mr. Burns did not use a seat belt and that he was thrown from his seat in the car following the impact. He received head and neck injuries. Under the circumstances of this case we do not believe it was beyond the province of the jury from its common knowledge to conclude that "the failure to use an available and operational seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of plaintiff's damages...." Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d at 454.
We do not find merit in the additional contention on appeal.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.
...961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Knapp v. Shores, 550 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 563 So.2d 634 (Fla.1990); Burns v. Smith, 476 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Meros & Chaisson, supra, at 12-14 (cases discussed In Parker v. Montgomery, 529 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA), review ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 89-715
...failure to make himself available for deposition a reasonable time before trial. 1 Appellant contended, relying on Burns v. Smith, 476 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), that expert testimony was not required to establish the plaintiff's back injury was caused by or exacerbated by the failure to......
-
Houghton v. Bond, 94-1330
...injuries in such case resulted from the failure to wear his seatbelt would be within the province of the jury. In Burns v. Smith, 476 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the plaintiff sustained, as in the case at hand, an impact-related injury. The jury apportioned 75% of the plaintiff's injuries......
-
Henry v. Hoelke
...relationship between the injury sustained and plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt.” Id. at 1171. For example, in Burns v. Smith, 476 So.2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), plaintiff was thrown from the car and suffered head and neck injuries. There, the second district found that expert tes......