Kuebler v. Ferris

I dissent for the same reason that the majority acknowledges that the “[cjircum-stantial evidence in this case also permits an inference that the plaintiff suffered no injury.” Even if the defense expert testified that the plaintiff may have been in need of some temporary medical treatment after the accident, the jury was presented with other evidence that the accident did not cause the plaintiff any injuries. The majority concedes that were we to apply “the same rationale as was used in Jordan2 and Schmidt3, we would have to find that the trial court abused its discretion.” The rationale is…