explaining trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony about “the deceptive quality of various factors that were present in the environment and the manner in which a person would react to these factors” because it created a situation beyond the ordinary experience and understanding of the jury
How later courts described this case
- explaining trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony about “the deceptive quality of various factors that were present in the environment and the manner in which a person would react to these factors” because it created a situation beyond the ordinary experience and understanding of the jury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARHAM, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Specifically, I agree with all of the concurring opinion of Judge James Downey, including his conclusion that allowing Dr. Scherer’s testimony as described could not be held as harmless error. However, I depart as to following the precedent in Hill. The decision in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Hill, 250 So.2d 311 (Fla.4th DCA 1971) is such a departure from precedent that it should not be followed. It is bad law and should be set aside.
The Defendant in this case was entitled to have the Plaintiff’s wrongdoing, her contributory or comparative negligence evaluated without the taint of the opinion of this self-styled “human engineer”.
For the above reasons I do respectfully dissent.