JOSE ANTONIO ROSARIO, ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES INC., AND BANKERS AND SHIPPERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANTS,
v.
NANCY JOHNSON MELVIN, APPELLEE
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.
In a personal injury case arising from a two-car accident, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant 60% negligent and the plaintiff 40% negligent, awarding the plaintiff $61,000 in damages. The appellants challenged the verdict on the ground that the jury improperly applied comparative negligence doctrine without proper jury instructions, but the court affirmed, holding that appellants waived any objection by failing to object to the verdict form and that the jury clearly indicated the damages figure was net of the comparative negligence reduction.
The appellants waived any objection to the verdict form by failing to object at the time of the verdict, and even if the verdict form was ambiguous, the jury's immediate post-verdict statement that the $61,000 figure was a net figure after reduction for comparative negligence constituted sufficient clarification.
[1] A party waives any objection to the form of a jury verdict by failing to object to it before the jury is discharged.
[2] A jury's confusion about how a verdict was reached after it has been published and polled does not provide a legal basis to set aside the verdict.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Even if appellants' argument has any merit, it comes too late.”
Establishes the waiver doctrine—appellants should have objected to the verdict form before the jury was discharged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNancy Johnson Melvin suffered personal injuries in a two-car accident. At trial, evidence was presented of both negligence and comparative negligence.…
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 Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of $61,000, appellants contend that the court erred in failing to grant a new trial because the jury improperly applied the doctrine of comparative negligence.
The case involved personal injuries which were suffered in a two car accident. At the trial there was evidence of both negligence and comparative negligence. The court gave the standard jury instruction on these issues, and the appellants requested no special instructions on such issues. Ultimately the jury returned the following verdict:
VERDICT
We, the Jury, on the claim of Plaintiff, NANCY JOHNSON MELVIN, find for the Plaintiff as follows:
1. JOSE ANTONIO ROSARIO was negligent in the following percentage 60_%.
2. NANCY JOHNSON MELVIN was negligent in the following percentage 40_%.
3. Taking into account the above-referenced percentages, we find that the Plaintiff, NANCY JOHNSON MELVIN, is entitled to 61,000 as the proper amount of damages she has sustained.
SO SAY WE ALL.
Dated: This 26 day of January 1983.
/s/ Donald F. Hickey
As Foreperson
At no time did appellants object to the form of the verdict.
Later appellants filed a motion for new trial supported by an affidavit of one of the jurors stating that the jury did not reduce the $61,000 figure by the percentage of comparative negligence. The court interviewed three jurors but their comments were indecisive as to whether or not comparative negligence had been applied to reduce the verdict to $61,000. The court denied the motion for new trial.
Appellants contend that the court erred in permitting the jury to make the reduction in the amount of the verdict attributable to comparative negligence without proper instructions. Even if appellants’ argument has any merit, it comes too late.
The court did not employ the special verdict form contained in Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Model Charge No. 1. This form, which follows the suggestion of Lawrence v. Florida East Coast Ry., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla.1977), provides for the jury to determine only the parties’ respective percentages of negligence and the plaintiff’s total damages, leaving for the court the mathematical calculation necessary to reduce the verdict by the percentage of comparative negligence. While the verdict form submitted in this case was somewhat unclear, it did instruct the jury to take into account “the above-referenced percentages” in determining damages. Be that as it may, appellants waived any ambiguities when they failed to object to the form of the verdict.
Moreover, immediately following publication of the verdict, the court asked the jury if the $61,000 figure was a net figure after the reduction of the percentage. One of the jurors answered affirmatively. This colloquy occurred in the presence of the other jurors and shortly thereafter they each agreed to the verdict in a jury poll. The fact that some of the jurors were later confused over how the verdict was reached did not provide a legal basis to set it aside. See Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. Dep't OF Corr., 513 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1987)…Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1953). In a similar case concerning a verdict form, the Second District Court of Appeal 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…
-
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 694 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(1)(c); Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8, 11-12 (Fla.1984); Dade County School Bd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 618 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Rosario v. Melvin, 446 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Romar Int'l, Inc. v. Jim Rathman Chevrolet/Cadillac, Inc., 420 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).…
Authorities Cited
- Lawrence v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1977)
- Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)