Case Name: SEA FRESH FROZEN PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Sam ABDIN and Lou Fischer, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-02-10
Citations: 411 So. 2d 218
Docket Number: No. 80-1000
Parties: SEA FRESH FROZEN PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Sam ABDIN and Lou Fischer, Appellees.
Judges: DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 411
Pages: 218–220

Head Matter:
SEA FRESH FROZEN PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Sam ABDIN and Lou Fischer, Appellees.
No. 80-1000.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 10, 1982.
Rehearing Denied March 9, 1982.
Russell W. Layton of Driscoll, Langston, Layton & Kane, P. A., Cocoa Beach, for appellant.
Richard E. Mandell of Wotitsky, Wotit-sky, Mandell, Batsel & Wilkins, Punta Gor-da, and Michael Sigman, Orlando, for appel-lee Sam Abdin.
No appearance for appellee Lou Fischer.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
The appellee, Sam Abdin, sued for injuries he received when he slipped on a boat ramp owned by appellant, Sea Fresh Frozen Products, Inc. Use of the boat ramp was provided to the public free of charge by the appellant. From a judgment in favor of appellee, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, Sea Fresh Frozen Products appeals.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff's expert witness to testify. Before an expert can testify, the subject matter must be beyond the common understanding of the average layman. Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 381 So.2d 229 (Fla.1980); Mills v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 127 So.2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). Here, the subject matter the plaintiff's expert testified about was the slipperiness of algae on a boat ramp, a subject easily comprehendible by an average juror. Even if the subject matter could have been considered outside the realm of a layman's experience, a person offered as an expert must be demonstrated to have some expertise in that particular field. Buch-man; Mills. Plaintiff's witness was offered as an expert in marine chemistry, with a doctorate and a research background in that field. However, he admitted he had never done any studies whatsoever concerning marine algae growth or its control, the very subject about which he was being offered to testify. For both these reasons, the trial court erred in allowing the witness to testify as an expert.
While normally this error would require reversal for a new trial, we hold the trial court additionally erred in not granting the appellant's motion for a directed verdict. We realize this case was appealed to the supreme court in Abdin v. Fischer, 374 So.2d 1379 (Fla.1979), wherein that court overturned a summary judgment. However, after a review of the record, we hold the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to prove the appellant liable for plaintiff's injury. The appellant was legally entitled to the benefits under section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1975), and the court should have enforced its right. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of a judgment for the defendant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
SHARP, J., concurs in part, dissents in part with opinion.