JACK DREW AND FAITH M. DREW, APPELLANTS,
v.
GORDON T. COUCH AND THE FLORIDA PATIENTS COMPENSATION FUND, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial. The motion was based on alleged jury misconduct and improper remarks by defense counsel. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The court found that the juror's nondisclosure was not material and did not affect her ability to render a fair verdict, and that the defense counsel's remarks were not preserved for appeal due to lack of objection.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on juror misconduct when the undisclosed information is not material or does not affec…
[2] A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial is a matter of broad discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court could have found, without abusing its discretion, that the questions propounded to the juror were reasonably susceptible of misinterpretation, Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); that the undisclosed information was not material, Perl v. K-Mart Corp., 493 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); or that the fact that the senior partner of the plaintiff’s firm had once represented her ex-husband did not affect her ability to render a fair and impartial verdict, Mobil Chemical Company v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).”
This quote explains the trial court's potential findings that supported the denial of the motion for a new trial regarding jury misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial, which was based on two grounds: a juror's failure to disclose a past attorney-clie…
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 Materiality Of Undisclosed Information cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Plaintiffs/appellants, Jack and Faith Drew, appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion for new trial based on jury misconduct and remarks made by defendants’ counsel during closing argument. Defendants present an issue on cross appeal, which they argue this court should consider only in the event that it finds appellants’ issues to warrant reversal.
We affirm the finding by the trial court that new trial was not warranted by a juror’s failure to reveal, during voir dire, that the senior partner of the law firm representing the plaintiff had represented the juror’s husband in her dissolution of marriage action some fifteen years prior to the trial in the instant case. Under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court could have found, without abusing its discretion, that the questions propounded to the juror were reasonably susceptible of misinterpretation, Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); that the undisclosed information was not material, Perl v. K-Mart Corp., 493 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); or that the fact that the senior partner of the plaintiff’s firm had once represented her ex-husband did not affect her ability to render a fair and impartial verdict, Mobil Chemical Company v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Since a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial is a matter of broad discretion, not to be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, we 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 issue raised on cross appeal.
ZEHMER, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gordon T. Couch, M.D. v. Drew, 554 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ainst Dr. Couch. Final judgment was entered for Couch in December 1986, at which time the trial court reserved jurisdiction to hear the matter of taxation of costs and attorney’s fees. The final judgment was affirmed by this court in Drew v. Couch, 519 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Couch’s unopposed motion for appellate attorney’s fees citing Section 768.56 was “provisionally granted,” and the court “remanded to the trial court to assess the amount in accordance with the rationale of Dresser v. Dresser, 35…
-
Eve Taylor v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 546 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ng the juror’s involvement with a pending lawsuit; moreover, the plaintiff’s counsel made no inquiry into this matter and did not seek to clarify the ambiguous response. See Blaylock v. State, 537 So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Drew v. Couch, 519 So. 2d 1023, 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1988); Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 472 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1985); see also McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548…
Authorities Cited
- Jefferson Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Betty and George Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 461 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- 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)
- Perl v. K-Mart Corp., 493 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Owen v. BAY Mem'l Med. Ctr., 443 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)