Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1996

Bucholc v. Kent

Bucholc v. Kent
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided January 17, 1996 · Glickstein, Klein, Pariente
666 So. 2d 275; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 303; 1996 WL 15487 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Bucholc v. Kent

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand this case for a new trial on damages (liability was admitted), because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it would have to find a permanent injury in order for plaintiff to be able to recover future economic damages. Although that instruction conformed to the law at that time in this district,1 the Florida Supreme Court subsequently held to the contrary in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 651 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1995). Although this error would normally only require a new trial on future economic damages, we have concluded that the new trial should be on all damages, because a comment made by the trial court regarding an expert could have affected the jury’s perception of the expert’s credibility.

Reversed.

GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

. See Josephson v. Bowers, 595 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.