EVE TAYLOR, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANICE KNOWLES, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY, D/B/A JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, 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.
Eve Taylor, as representative of a deceased patient's estate, appealed a jury verdict against her in a wrongful death medical malpractice action against Jackson Memorial Hospital and the University of Miami School of Medicine. The appellate court affirmed the adverse judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's jury-related rulings or other evidentiary decisions.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit reversible error on any of these points. The juror's one-word response was ambiguous and not a clear misrepresentation, plaintiff's counsel failed to seek clarification, the challenged juror was excused by peremptory challenge and plaintiff did not request additional challenges, and no juror misconduct was shown to merit post-trial interviews. The closing argument comments did not rise to fundamental error.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on a juror's ambiguous response during voir dire if the party seeking the new trial…
[2] A ruling denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror is not reversible error if the juror did not serve on the jury and the challenging party did not demonstrate…
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“the subject response was ambiguous in nature and did not constitute, as urged, a misrepresentation of fact concerning 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.”
Establishes that ambiguous juror voir dire responses require clarification by counsel and do not constitute grounds for new trial without clear misrepresentation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a wrongful death medical malpractice action brought by Eve Taylor as personal representative of Janice Knowles' estate against Public Health …
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 Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
[*734] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Eve Taylor from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in a wrongful death, medical malpractice action. The plaintiff raises various points on appeal which, we conclude, do not present reversible error. We accordingly affirm.
First, we conclude that the trial. court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on a one-word response (“no”) of the jury foreman made during voir dire examination of the jury after a statement was made by defense counsel that the juror had neglected to answer a question on the jury questionnaire concerning the juror’s possible involvement in prior lawsuits. Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, the subject response was ambiguous in nature and did not constitute, as urged, a misrepresentation of fact concerning 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, 554-56, 104 S.Ct. 845, 849-50, 78 L.Ed.2d 663, 670-71 (1984); c.f. Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 819, 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
. Second, the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the plaintiff's challenge for cause directed to a prospective juror. This is so because (1) the said juror did not serve on the jury as he was excused by the plaintiff upon a peremptory challenge, and (2) although the plaintiff exhausted her peremptory challenges, she did not request an additional challenge nor indicate in any way that she was dissatisfied with any member of the jury which tried the case. Based on the controlling and indistinguishable authority of Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1985) and Anderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2870, 101 L.Ed.2d 905 (1988), the plaintiff has not been harmed by the ruling complained of and, therefore, no reversible error has been shown.
Finally, no reversible error has been shown in either the denial of the post-trial motion to interview jurors because no juror misconduct was shown on this record to merit such an interview, Kasper Instruments, Inc. v. Maurice, 394 So. 2d 1125, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see Judson v. Nicson Eng’g Co., 478 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. dismissed, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986); Dover Corp. v. Dean, 473 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1985); Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), or in the closing argument of counsel for Metropolitan Dade County because no objection to the argument was made, and the complained-of comments do not rise to the level of fundamental error. See Honda Motor Co. v. Marcus, 440 So. 2d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1984); Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 474 So. 2d 825, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986); Russell v. Guider, 362 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1979).
The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernal v. Donald H. Lipp, D.P.M. & Donald H. Lipp, D.P.M., P.A., 580 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…nal branch of the test, in this instance the plaintiffs’ counsel made careful and diligent inquiry of each of the jurors regarding any prior experience in litigation, whether as a party or otherwise. Cf. Taylor v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 546 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA) (where juror gave ambiguous answer and no further inquiry was made on voir dire, there was insufficient due diligence shown to warrant new trial), review denied, 557 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1989). Reversed and remanded for new trial.…
-
Birch v. Albert, 761 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ecause a juror’s answer cannot constitute concealment, where the juror’s response to a question about litigation history is ambiguous, and counsel does not inquire further to clarify that ambiguity.7 See Taylor v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 546 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 557 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1989); State v. McGough, 536 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). And second, because defense counsel did not diligently discover this information. Given ample opportunity to do so, defense counsel faile…
-
Thomas J. Kelly, M.D. & Thomas J. Kelly, M.D., P.A. v. Cmty. Hosp. OF the Palm Beaches, Inc., 756 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Salmon v. State, 755 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Tejada v. Roberts, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 201200 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D99-1432, opinion filed, February 23, 2000); Taylor v. Public Health Trust, 546 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 557 So. 2d 867 (Fla.1989); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); Jimenez v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 458 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Lynch…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984)
- Hill v. State, 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985)
- B.G. Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 474 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Blaylock v. State, 537 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Marcus, 440 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- 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)
- Kasper Instruments, Inc. v. Maurice, 394 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Cummings v. Sine, 404 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Dover Corp. v. Dean, 473 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)