TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Aiken v. Miller

Aiken v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 8, 1974
Docket
No. T-184
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
298 So. 2d 477
Cited by 5

Opinion — Per Curiam

298 So.2d 477 (1974)

Edith M. AIKEN, Appellant,

v.

Henry MILLER et al., Appellees.

No. T-184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 8, 1974.

*478 Hugh M. Davenport of Greene, Greene, Smith & Davenport, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Andrew G. Pattillo, Jr., of Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, Ocala, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Edith M. Aiken, brings this appeal from a jury verdict which awarded her $3,000.00 for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The jury had the opportunity to hear all the evidence in this case to evaluate same, and we find no reason for setting aside the jury's determination of the case. The only matter which we feel concerns comment by this Court is the decision of the trial court to not allow one, Dr. Kuhn, a chiropractor, to give his opinion as, whether based upon reasonable medical probability, a change in Mrs. Aiken's eyesight after the accident was a result of the automobile accident. We feel that the trial court properly sustained the objection to the question on the basis that a proper predicate had not been laid and there had been no testimony as to the qualifications of Dr. Kuhn to testify on problems related to eyes or vision. In addition, we note that the answer which Dr. Kuhn proffered to the question was not responsive. Last, even if error had been committed in not allowing Dr. Kuhn to testify, such was harmless because the appellant presented for the consideration of the jury the testimony of an optometrist who opined that her vision problems were probably related to the automobile accident.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

RAWLS, C.J., and JOHNSON and McCORD, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1977: 11986: 21987: 11989: 119772026peak 1986 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Trend Coin Co. v. Honeywell, Inc.487 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1986)
  2. Horowitz v. American Motorist Ins. Co.343 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
  3. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Alvarez490 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
  4. Kennedy v. Brago544 So. 2d 216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
  5. Kranis v. Zahler505 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Kennedy v. Brago544 So. 2d 216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
  2. Kranis v. Zahler505 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
  3. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Alvarez490 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
  4. Trend Coin Co. v. Honeywell, Inc.487 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1986)
  5. Horowitz v. American Motorist Ins. Co.343 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list