Smith v. Lyles

• Docket Number: 6D23-64
• Decision Date: 26 May 2023
• Parties: Cullin Smith, Appellant, v. Robin Lyles, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

1

Cullin Smith, Appellant,
v.
Robin Lyles, Appellee.

No. 6D23-64

Florida Court of Appeals, Sixth District

May 26, 2023

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County, Lower Tribunal No. 19-835CA Geoffrey H. Gentile, Judge.

Daniel A. Rock and Wendy F. Lumish, of Bowman and Brooke LLP, Coral Gables, for Appellant.

Brian J. Lee, of Morgan &Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

MIZE, J.

Appellant, Cullin Smith ("Smith"), appeals the trial court's order granting the motion for new trial filed by Appellee, Robin Lyles ("Lyles").^[1] We reverse the trial

2

court's order granting the motion for new trial and remand with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Smith.

Background and Procedural History

On October 9, 2017, Lyles and Smith were both stopped at a red light waiting to make a right-hand turn. Lyles was first in line to make the turn, and Smith was immediately behind Lyles. When the light turned green, Lyles began driving his car forward. Smith followed. Lyles testified that after beginning to move forward, he looked to his left to check whether any vehicles were approaching in the lane into which he was turning. As Lyles looked left, he saw a red truck preparing to run a red light and change lanes into his path. Smith testified that he also looked left as he began to move forward, he did not see any oncoming vehicles, and he continued to move forward. Lyles made a sudden stop and, although Smith applied his brakes, Smith's car crashed into Lyles' car.

Neither party reported any injuries at the scene of the collision and neither vehicle underwent any repairs. Lyles testified that later that day, he began to feel achy. Lyles went to the hospital, where he underwent an x-ray that revealed no evidence of fractures but did show signs of preexisting conditions. Subsequently, Lyles claimed he suffered numerous injuries as a result of the collision, including injuries to his head, neck, left shoulder, back, and knee. Lyles visited a chiropractor who found ruptured discs in his spine, and a neurologist that recommended Lyles

3

undergo neck surgery to fuse his spine together. Lyles decided against that surgery and instead saw another doctor, who treated pain in Lyles' left shoulder with a cortisone shot. On that doctor's advice, Lyles later underwent shoulder surgery.

Lyles filed a complaint against Smith alleging negligence in connection with the collision. Smith denied he was negligent and asserted that it was reasonable for him to briefly look left for oncoming traffic while starting to turn right, that there was no oncoming truck for Lyles to avoid, and that Lyles' arbitrary and abrupt "spike" stop caused the collision. Further, Smith claimed that the minimal forces in the accident could not have caused Lyles' alleged injuries, and that Lyles' injuries were instead the result of his documented degenerative, preexisting conditions which he had experienced for more than ten years before the accident.

Before trial, Lyles filed a motion in limine to prohibit Smith's biomechanical expert, Dr. William Scott, from providing medical opinions. Smith responded that Dr. Scott would testify about the forces in the crash and the risk of injury in the accident. The trial court ruled that "Dr. Scott won't be testifying about whether [Lyles] was injured in this accident nor permanency and - but there's a lot of testimony around there that does relate to the issue of causation, so we'll take it question by question."

At trial, during voir dire, Lyles' counsel, of the law firm of Morgan &Morgan, extensively explored the issue of bias against Morgan &Morgan attorneys and

4

specifically asked the jury panel if they harbored any bias against Morgan &Morgan. The trial judge struck every prospective juror that Lyles challenged.

After Lyles completed his testimony at trial, a juror asked the question of what date Lyles retained Morgan &Morgan. The trial court found this information inadmissible and did not provide an answer to the jury.

During Smith's testimony at trial, Lyles' attorney asked Smith if he "accepted...