SERGIO NIEBLA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE FLYING TIGERS LINE, INC., ETC., 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.
In this negligence case, the trial court granted a new trial after determining that the jury's damages verdict resulted from an improper quotient verdict, where jurors agreed in advance to average their damage assessments. The appellate court reversed as to liability (which both parties accepted) but affirmed the new trial order as to damages, since quotient verdicts are impermissible.
The trial court properly granted a new trial as to damages because quotient verdicts are improper and constitute grounds for a new trial. However, because neither party disputed liability, the order for a new trial should be reversed as to liability and affirmed only as to damages.
[1] A jury verdict arrived at by averaging the jurors' individual damage assessments, where the jurors agreed in advance to be bound by the average, constitutes a quotient ve…
[2] A trial court is authorized to resolve conflicts in juror testimony to determine whether a verdict is a quotient verdict.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In the instant case, the trial court could and did find that there was a preliminary agreement or understanding among the jurors that each would select a figure as representing his opinion of the value of the damage and that the sum of said amounts divided by the number of jurors would be accepted by each as his or her verdict, and was in fact so accepted.”
Establishes the factual basis for finding a quotient verdict—the improper agreement among jurors to average damage assessments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNiebla obtained a jury verdict against Flying Tigers Line, Inc. for personal injuries. After judgment was entered, Flying Tigers moved to interrogate …
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 Juror Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a negligence case in which the plaintiff below seeks reversal of an order for a new trial that resulted from juror testimony indicating that the jury’s verdict had been arrived at by means which would make it a quotient verdict. Because neither party disputes the determination of liability, we reverse the order for a new trial as to liability but affirm the order as to all other issues.
Niebla prevailed against Flying Tigers Line, Inc. for personal injuries he incurred. Following entry of judgment, the defendant filed a motion to recall the jurors to interrogate them, alleging that their decision represented a quotient verdict. The trial judge granted the motion and heard various jurors’ testimony over a period of time. Some jurors testified that they did not agree to be bound by a quotient verdict. Others could not recall such an understanding but some clearly and distinctly testified that the jurors did consent in advance to be bound by a quotient verdict.
The trial judge is authorized to resolve conflicts in the evidence in order to determine whether the jury’s decision is the product of a quotient verdict, and we find we are bound by his determination. Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), and it takes a stronger showing of error in order to reverse an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Pix Shoes of Miami, 201 So. 2d at 82.
In the instant case, the trial court could and did find that there was a preliminary agreement or understanding among the jurors that each would select a figure as representing his opinion of the value of the damage and that the sum of said amounts divided by the number of jurors would be accepted by each as his or her verdict, and was in fact so accepted. It has long been held in this jurisdiction that this is improper and constitutes a ground for new trial. Marks v. State Road Dep’t, 69 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1954); Cromarty v. Ford Motor Co., 341 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla.1976).
For this reason, while the jury’s verdict as to liability should be reinstated, the order granting the litigants a new trial as to damages is affirmed. This renders moot the appellee’s cross-appeal which will be cured by the award of a new trial.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. John E.D. Grunow, Jr., 71 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ized that “it takes a stronger showing of error in order to reverse an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial.” Greens to You, Inc. v. Gavelek, 967 So. 2d 318, 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Niebla v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 533 So. 2d 816, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)). Applying that stringent standard, and following a thorough review of the trial tran [*189] script excerpts cited by counsel for the appellees to support the trial court’s ruling, we conclude that the order in the case at ha…
-
Rudolph J. Frei, M.D., P.A. v. Eve Alger and Donald Alger, 655 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…erturn an order granting a new trial than is required to overturn an order denying a new trial. Castle-wood Int’l Corp. v. La Fleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975); Davis v. O’Dell, 506 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Niebla v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 533 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The supreme court has also held that when the order under consideration is deficient as failing to include the record references in support of the trial court’s finding, the appellate court can independently review the record in…
-
Greens TO YOU, Inc. v. Gavelek, 967 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…on a motion for new trial is reviewed by appellate courts for an abuse of discretion, and “it takes a stronger showing of error in order to reverse an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial.” Niebla v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 533 So. 2d 816, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). In Marks v. State Road Department, 69 So. 2d 771, 773 (Fla.1954), the Florida Supreme Court, in addressing quotient verdicts, held as follo…
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
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Marks v. State Rd. Dep't, 69 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1954)
- PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Elzada W. Cromarty v. Ford Motor Co., 341 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1976)