DOMINIC SOUTH, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, TERRENCE SOUTH AND ANNETTE SOUTH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE PALM BAY CLUB, INC., 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.
The court affirmed a judgment for the defendant in a negligence action, holding that the trial court's refusal to give certain jury instructions was harmless error and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial based on improper juror contact.
The trial court's refusal to give requested jury instructions was harmless error, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial based on counsel's improper contact with a juror that did not concern the merits of the case.
[1] Refusal to give requested jury instructions constitutes harmless error when the jury instructions given as a whole, together with the evidence, do not mislead the jury.
[2] Trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial motion based on counsel's improper contact with a juror when the contact concerns nothing related to the m…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDominic South, by and through his parents Terrence and Annette South, brought a negligence action against The Palm Bay Club, Inc. A jury verdict was r…
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 Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs Dominic, Terrence and Annette South appeal an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in plaintiffs’ action against The Palm Bay Club, Inc. for negligence.
The judgment from which the plaintiffs appeal is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the trial court’s refusal to give certain requested jury instructions was harmless error as, upon consideration of the jury instructions taken as a whole, together with the evidence, we find the jury was not misled by the failure to give the requested instructions, see Guy v. Kight, 431 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); Gallagher v. Federal Insurance Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1977); and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial on the basis that counsel for defendant had improper contact with a juror where the communication had nothing to do with the merits of the case, and the trial judge questioned the juror and was assured by her that such contact would not affect her decision, see First National Bank in Tarpon Springs v. Bliss, 56 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1952); Concord Shopping Center, Inc. v. Bookbinder, 227 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowland v. Harris Corp., 568 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…theless, in a case such as this, where the instruction deals directly with the issue of liability and where plaintiffs counsel has tried so hard to avoid the error, I cannot vote my hunch. I would reverse. . South By South v. Palm Bay Club, Inc., 486 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1973); Maule Industries, Inc. v.…
Authorities Cited
- Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Norval M. GUY v. Kight, 431 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- First Nat. Bank in Tarpon Springs v. Bliss, 56 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1952)
- Concord Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Bookbinder, 227 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)