GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 84-1839

Decision Date15 May 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-1839,84-1839
Citation471 So.2d 81,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1242
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 1242 GIW SOUTHERN VALVE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert C. SMITH, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Charles P. Schropp and Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Patrick F. Sprague of Sprague & Jeske, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

In this personal injury suit which resulted in a jury verdict and judgment against defendant for $1,350,000, we reverse and remand for a new trial on damages.

We agree with defendant's contention on appeal that there was reversible error in the trial court's admission, over objection, of the testimony of an expert witness who was a clinical psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist and who was not a medical doctor. That testimony consisted of the opinion that because of the accident plaintiff's "brain would deteriorate much more rapidly in the future" and an explanation thereof.

We agree with plaintiff that whether an expert witness is qualified to give opinion testimony is normally determined in the sound discretion of the trial court. We do not agree, however, that this is an unfettered discretion. See, e.g., Carver v. Orange County, 444 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); City Stores Company v. Mazzaferro, 342 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Mills v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 127 So.2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). We would be remiss if we failed to correct what we believe to be an abuse of that discretion when, as we believe is clear here, the witness's testimony was not without significant impact upon the outcome of the trial.

There is no argument with the proposition that a psychologist may properly give opinion testimony as to an existing mental condition, see Ross v. State, 386 So.2d 1191 (Fla.1980); Reese v. Naylor, 222 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), and existing organic brain damage. Executive Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, we have been cited to and have located no authority permitting a psychologist to give expert opinion testimony as to the future condition of a brain as the result of an accident.

There is authority that a psychologist is not qualified to give opinion testimony as to whether existing brain damage was the result of a particular accident. Executive Car, and cases cited therein. We believe the underlying rationale for excluding that type of opinion testimony requires the exclusion of the type of testimony in issue here. That rationale involves the lack of qualifications of a non-medical witness on a medical subject. We have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hutchison v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1994
    ...of physical injuries. See, e.g., Bilbrey v. Industrial Comm'n, 27 Ariz.App. 473, 475, 556 P.2d 27, 29 (1976); GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So.2d 81, 82 (Fla.App.1985) (psychologist not qualified to give opinion testimony as to whether existing brain damage was the result of a partic......
  • Grenitz v. Tomlian
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2003
    ...v. Grenitz, 782 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions in GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Bishop v. Baldwin Acoustical & Drywall, 696 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(......
  • Morris v. Chandler Exterminators, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1991
    ...were properly stricken. See generally Kriewitz v. Savoy Heating & Air Cond. Co., 396 So.2d 49 (Ala.1981); GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So.2d 81 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1985). I believe that the superior court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the affidavit. Macon-Bibb County H......
  • Adamson v. Chiovaro
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 4, 1998
    ...Gordon from testifying in the manner in which he did. To the extent that Florida has expressed a contrary view in GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So.2d 81 (Fla.App.1985), we do not Defendant claims that two comments by plaintiff's counsel in his summation constitute reversible error an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT