JOHN OWEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ANN OWEN, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
BAY MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA; JAMES DERUITER, M.D.; JOE B. HARBISON, M.D.; AND DOROTHY DAFFIN, R.N., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A medical malpractice plaintiff appeals a trial court order granting defendants a new trial due to juror misconduct, while defendants cross-appeal the denial of their directed verdict motions. The appellate court affirms, upholding the trial judge's discretion to grant a new trial based on juror nondisclosure and finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict against one defendant.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial to Bay and Harbison due to the juror's failure to disclose a recent adverse client relationship with Bay's counsel's partner. The trial court properly denied Owen's motion for a new trial against DeRuiter as his liability is separable. The trial court properly denied the defendants' directed verdict motions because expert testimony established that Harbison's conduct fell below accepted medical standards and supported the jury's verdict.
[1] A trial court's grant of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
[2] A juror's failure to disclose a recent, less than amicable ending of a client relationship with a partner of an attorney representing a party constitutes juror misconduct…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the grant of a new trial should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion”
Establishes the high deferential standard for reviewing a trial court's decision to grant a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Ann Owen died following medical treatment at Bay Memorial Medical Center. John Owen, her personal representative, sued the hospital and three hea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Owen appeals a final order granting appellees Joe Harbison (Harbison) and Bay Memorial Medical Center (Bay) a new trial due to juror misconduct and denying Owen’s motion for a new trial on claims against appellees James DeRuiter (DeRui-ter) and Dorothy Daffin (Daffin). Bay and Harbison cross-appeal the same order which denied their motions for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict.
We affirm the trial court’s granting of a new trial by recognizing the trial judge’s discretion to order a new trial and the well documented position that the grant of a new trial should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by finding juror misconduct where the juror failed to disclose the recent, less than amicable ending of her client relationship with a partner of the attorney representing Bay. See Mobil Chemical Company v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rehearing denied November 3, 1983.
The trial court properly denied Owen’s motion for a new trial against De-Ruiter, as DeRuiter’s liability is a separable issue. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530.
Owen’s failure to show that Daffin breached a duty or that her actions fell below the accepted standard of care provides ample support for the trial court’s directed verdict in her favor. A motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for directed verdict should be granted only when there is no evidence presented upon which the jury could have lawfully reached its verdict. First National Bank of Stuart v. Jackson, 267 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). If the evidence is reasonably susceptible of supporting the jury verdict, then the motion should be denied. Wilson v. Tanner, 346 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Expert testimony reflected that Harbison’s actions fell below accepted medical standards and that a crash cart should have been near the patient. This evidence is reasonably susceptible of supporting the jury’s verdict, therefore the trial court properly denied the motion.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting a new trial to Bay and Harbison, denying Owen’s motion for a new trial against DeRuiter and Daffin, and denying Bay’s and Harbison’s motions for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict is AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betty and George Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…g 394 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Minnis v. Jackson, 330 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., supra, or concealed that he was related to or knew the parties or attorneys involved, Owen v. Bay Memorial Medical Center, 443 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Mobil Chemical Co. v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for rev. den., 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984), or where the juror stated that she would be impartial, but during deliberation told the panel that she knew the wi…
-
Molinari v. Fla. Key Elec. Coop. Ass'n, Inc., 545 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…s no evidence on which the jury could lawfully have reached its verdict. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, [*324] Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Anderson, 501 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987); Owen v. Bay Memorial Medical Center, 443 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1984). The plaintiffs presented evidence showing that the power company employee was uncertain as to which switch controlled the flow of electricity and that he, nevertheless, informed Lannon tha…
-
Drew v. Couch, 519 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…new trial is a matter of broad discretion, not to be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, we [*1024] affirm. Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Owen v. Bay Memorial Medical Center, 443 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We affirm appellants’ second issue as well, since the allegedly improper remarks made by defense counsel were not objected to by plaintiffs’ counsel. In light of our affirmance of these two issues, we need not reach the issu…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. First Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Mobil Chem. Co. v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Wilson v. Jackson B. Tanner and Pearl E. Tanner, 346 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- First Nat'l Bank OF Stuart v. Jackson, 267 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)