Cited by

“Whether an accident caused a person’s injuries is a question of fact which should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.” ().

3 should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.” ().

Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882 ; Sistler, 558 So.2d at 1112 .

4 In addition, (), specifically clarified the role of the appellate court by stating, “if the trial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even though conv

The' Housley presumption, is a legal presumption that “a medical condition producing disability is presumed to have resulted from the accident if the injured person was in good health prior to the accident, but shortly after the accident, the disabling condition manifested itself.” Stoll, supra at page 1095; Powell, supra at page 55

See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

See generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

Alternatively, they contend that the so-called Housley presumption, applies and that proof of a reasonable possibility of a causal connection is sufficient.

always keep in mind that “if the trial court or jury‟s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would 13 have weighed the evidence differently.” Stobart at 882-83, (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

The reviewing court must always keep in mind that “if the trial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would |14have weighed the evidence differently.” Stobart at 882-83 , (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

laSee generally, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

DISCUSSION Porsche assigns five errors on appeal, which raise the primary issues of whether the trial judge erred in finding that she failed to prove causation regarding her tinnitus and hearing loss and, more specifically

The Housley presumption, is a legal presumption that “a medical condition producing disability is presumed to have resulted from the accident if the injured person was in good health prior to the accident, but shortly after the accident, the disabling condition manifested itself.” Powell, supra at page.

We have previously emphasized the principle that “if the trial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882 -83 ( (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

Id., p. 4, 916 So.2d at 1146 -1147 (citing Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

ep in mind that if a trier of fact’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse even if convinced that if it had been sitting as trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Rabito, supra, 2004-0359, p. 4 , 916 So.2d at 1146 -1147 (citing Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

The trial court committed reversible error by failing to include in its jury charges an instruction regarding the causation presumption contained in *1074 Houseley [Housley ] v. Cense

The court noted that, although the plaintiff had a history of complaints of hip pain, he had only three documented reports of hip pain over a period of ten years, with the most recent occurring three years before the 2 This presumption has become known as the ―Housley presumption.‖ the supreme court held that a plaintiff’s disability is presumed to have come from an accident where: 1) the plaintiff was in good health before the accident; 2) the symptoms of the plaintiff’s alleged injury appeared

This presumption has become known as the "Housley presumption.” the supreme court held that a plaintiff's disability is presumed to have come from an accident where: 1) the plaintiff was in good health before the accident; 2) the symptoms of the plaintiff's alleged injury appeared and continuously manifested themselves after the accident; and 3) the plaintiff submits ev

Whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the presumption of causation between the consumption of contaminated food by appellant, Waymon Jones, and his subsequent symptoms and treatment

Whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the presumption of causation between the consumption of contaminated food by appellant, Waymon Jones, and his subsequent symptoms and treatment

at 883 ((quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

applied to this case to satisfy each plaintiffs burden of proof on causation; 5.

Jury’s a plaintiff is entitled to a presumption of causation if three elements are met: 1) the person was in good health prior to the accident; 2) commencing with the accident, the symptoms of the disabling condition appeared and continuously manifested themselves afterwards; and 3) there is a reasonable possibili

Montgomery, supra; Saunders v. ANPAC Louisiana Ins.

Housley 4 v. Cerise, Smith, 523 So.2d at 822; Hastings, 498 So.2d at 720.

Cerise, Smith, 523 So.2d at 822 ; Hastings, 498 So.2d at 720 .

Plaintiffs further contend that the evidence they presented in opposition to defendants’