Case Name: Kevin D. LABERGE, Appellant, v. Janis R. VANCLEAVE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-10-27
Citations: 534 So. 2d 1176
Docket Number: No. 87-1960
Parties: Kevin D. LABERGE, Appellant, v. Janis R. VANCLEAVE, Appellee.
Judges: DANIEL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 534
Pages: 1176–1177

Head Matter:
Kevin D. LABERGE, Appellant, v. Janis R. VANCLEAVE, Appellee.
No. 87-1960.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 27, 1988.
On Motion for Clarification Dec. 15, 1988.
James E. Glatt, Jr., of Malone, Beers, Glatt & Wyatt, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert J. Felice, Fern Park, for appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, Chief Judge.
Laberge appeals a directed verdict against him on liability, and the trial court's order granting a new trial on damages. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which Laberge's automobile struck Vancleave's from the rear, and she suffered an injury to her neck or upper spine. The issue at trial was whether Van-cleave suffered a permanent injury pursuant to the "threshold" requirements of section 627.730, Florida Statutes (1985).
Based on conflicting testimony given by expert witnesses, the jury found no permanent injury was proven. One expert testified that Vancleave suffered permanent soft tissue injury; the other said he found no permanent physical injury, but expressed no opinion as to permanent soft tissue injury. The trial judge directed the verdict against Laberge primarily because Laberge's expert refused to opine on the issue of permanent soft tissue injury. We reverse. Regardless of the quality of the experts' testimony,- (we hasten to add, we can fault none of it in this case) the question of whether a plaintiff has suffered a permanent injury is one for the jury. See Tripp v. Killam, 492 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Martin v. Young, 443 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ruiz, 305 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). On this issue, there was a conflict in the evidence in this case.
Further, a directed verdict should be affirmed only where, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the trier of fact could not have reasonably differed on the finding of essential material facts. Plotch v. Gergory, 463 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Because the claimed injury was subjective (not based on organic evidence), it is obvious the jury could have disbelieved the plaintiff's claims of continued pain.
REVERSED.
DANIEL, J., concurs.
COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.