KELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT MORGART AND WILMA MORGART, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a products liability case. While we agree with appellant that there was error regarding the inconsistent interrogatory verdicts, we cannot reverse the judgment. The fault should not be laid upon the trial judge; rather, it must be placed upon the defendant’s trial attorney who led the court into error by approving, or failing to object to, the form of the verdict before it was submitted to the jury. Trial counsel also failed to bring the inconsistent verdicts to the attention of the trial court before the jury was discharged thus preventing the timely correction of the problem by the trial judge. For all we know, defendant’s trial counsel intentionally, for tactical reasons, chose not to bring the problem to the court’s attention. Counsel for appellant on appeal was not trial counsel. See Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Department of Transportation v. Denmark, 366 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
AFFIRMED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Hill v. Dep't OF Corr., 513 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1987)…determined that appellants waived any ambiguities when they failed to object to the form of the verdict. Rosario v. Melvin, 446 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Likewise, the Fifth District Court of Appeal noted in Keller Industries, Inc. v. Morgart, 412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982): The fault ... must be placed upon the ... trial attorney who led the court into error by approving, or failing to object to, the form of the verdict.... For all we know ... trial counsel intentionally, for tactical reasons, cho…
-
Ashby Div. OF Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…to the jury being discharged. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, 46 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1950) (trial counsel must [*338] bring inconsistency of verdict to trial court’s attention before the jury is discharged); Keller Industries, Inc. v. Morgart, 412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (same). Since the entire claim must be tried anew, it is unnecessary to address defendant’s final point on appeal, that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the wife’s loss of consortium claim. Reversed and remanded…
-
Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 164 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2015)…rties to not timely object “as a conscious choice of strategy” since the complaining party may risk having the award unfavorably adjusted. See C.G. Chase Constr. Co. v. Colon, 725 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Keller Indus., Inc. v. Morgart, 412 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“For all we know, defendant’s trial counsel intentionally, for tactical reasons, chose not to bring the problem to the court’s attention.”). Third, mandating parties to immediately object preserves limited judicial resourc…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Lindquist v. Emy Lou Covert and Allyn Richard Myers, 279 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Gleason v. Leadership Hous., Inc., 366 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- The State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Denmark, 366 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)