A Florida court has ordered a new trial in a multivehicle accident case involving Aaron Angel and defendants Tiffany White and David White. The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled that the trial court improperly granted a directed verdict in favor of the Whites. This decision affects Angel, who claims he was injured in the accident, and could have broader implications for how negligence cases are handled in Florida.
The case, titled Angel v. White, was filed under docket number 2D2025-0703 on July 10, 2026. At the center of the dispute is whether the Whites were negligent in their driving, which allegedly led to the injuries sustained by Angel. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of allowing juries to weigh conflicting evidence in negligence cases.
Aaron Angel filed a lawsuit against Tiffany White, David White, and Joshua Regan after a car accident in Pasco County. Angel claimed he was stopped at a red light when his truck was rear-ended. He testified that he felt two impacts but did not see the collision. During the trial, he was on the phone with a friend when the crash occurred. His friend, Andrew Myers, testified that he heard Angel say he had been hit and then heard a crash.
To support his case, Angel called forensic engineer Steven Koontz as an expert witness. Koontz reconstructed the accident and testified that Ms. White's vehicle struck Angel's truck first, followed by Mr. Regan's vehicle hitting Ms. White's vehicle and pushing it into Angel's truck again. On the other hand, Regan claimed that Ms. White cut him off, causing him to rear-end her vehicle. He testified that he was driving at a speed of forty to forty-five miles per hour when the collision occurred.
Ms. White testified that she was stopped at the red light and felt a single impact from behind, which propelled her vehicle into Angel's truck. The Whites also presented their own expert, Bradley Cook, who supported their version of events, stating that Regan's vehicle struck Ms. White's vehicle at a high speed, leading to the collision with Angel's truck.
The trial court initially reserved ruling on the Whites' motion for a directed verdict but later declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked. The court then granted a directed verdict in favor of the Whites, stating that the evidence did not support a finding of negligence on their part. The court concluded that Regan's account of the events was physically impossible based on the testimony presented.
In its ruling, the District Court of Appeal found that the trial court had improperly weighed the conflicting expert testimonies. The court stated, "Because the trial court improperly weighed the parties' conflicting expert testimony, we reverse and remand for a new trial." The judges on the panel included Judge Smith, with Judges Morris and Black concurring.
This ruling is significant because it reinforces the principle that juries should evaluate conflicting evidence in negligence cases. The court emphasized that directed verdicts in negligence actions should be rare and that the evidence must be viewed in favor of the nonmoving party. The court noted that the testimony of both expert witnesses was conflicting and that the trial court should not have dismissed the case based on one expert's opinion alone.
Going forward, this ruling may impact how similar negligence cases are handled in Florida. It underscores the importance of allowing juries to consider all evidence, even when expert testimonies conflict. The decision could also influence how courts approach directed verdicts in future negligence cases, ensuring that plaintiffs have the opportunity to present their cases fully.
As for what’s next, the case will return to the trial court for a new trial. The court's ruling leaves open the possibility for further appeals, but details on any related cases or appeals were not available in the court filing.