GERALD R. BICKEL AND CAROLYN BICKEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Gerald and Carolyn Bickel sought uninsured motorist benefits from State Farm after Gerald was struck by his wife's car in a parking lot. A jury found against them, but post-trial discovery of potential jury misconduct—the jury foreman allegedly visited the accident scene and conducted his own experiment—warranted reversal and remand to investigate the juror's conduct.
The trial court erred in denying the opportunity to interview the jury foreman. Such an interview is necessary because the alleged juror misconduct—conducting independent investigations outside the courtroom and disregarding instructions to confine deliberations to trial evidence—is a proper subject for juror inquiry, distinguishable from attempts to probe subjective decision-making.
[1] A party is entitled to interview a juror if there is a reasonable belief that jury misconduct occurred during deliberations.
[2] A jury's deliberations are generally protected from inquiry into their subjective decision-making process.
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“This is not merely a case of an unsuccessful litigant impermissibly attempting to inquire into 'the subjective decision making process of the jury.'”
Establishes that the case falls outside the normal prohibition on juror interviews by distinguishing between inquiry into deliberative process and investigation of alleged misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerald Bickel was struck and injured in a shopping center parking lot by an automobile driven by his wife, Carolyn. The Bickels claimed Carolyn was fo…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Gerald Bickel was struck and injured in the parking lot of a Lakeland shopping center by an automobile driven by his wife, appellant Carolyn Bickel. In their complaint against appellee State Farm, appellants alleged that Mrs. Bickel was required “to drive her vehicle in a defensive manner” to avoid a second automobile, which “swerved quickly into a parking place in front of their vehicle” and which left the scene of the accident before it or its driver could be identified. State Farm’s answer to the complaint denied that another driver’s actions caused the injury. A jury found against appellants on their claim for uninsured motorist benefits. On the day after this verdict was rendered appellants’ counsel coincidentally encountered one of the jurors at a health spa and “struck a conversation” with the juror. The juror related that during a break in the two-day trial the jury foreman announced that he had driven to the scene of the accident and had performed an “experiment” with another automobile, thereby concluding that appellants’ accident could not have occurred as they described at trial. Appellants’ motion for new trial and motion for leave to interview the jury fore-, man were denied.
We conclude that the trial court erred in denying appellants the opportunity to interview the jury foreman. This is not merely a case of an unsuccessful litigant impermis-sibly attempting to inquire into “the subjective decision making process of the jury.” Velsor v. Allstate Insurance Co., 329 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 336 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.1976). If the information related to counsel were true, the jurors apparently disregarded the court’s instructions to confine their deliberations to the evidence presented at trial. Similar misconduct prompted a remand for further proceedings in Snook v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
We remand this case with directions to permit an interview in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(h). If the interview establishes jury misconduct which affected the verdict, a new trial will be necessary; otherwise, the verdict shall stand.
Reversed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis Singletary v. Mary Kendra Lewis, M.D., 584 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…y have entered into the verdict. Evidence of improper considerations by the jury will justify a jury interview. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 675 v. Kinder, 573 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Bickel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 557 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990). Prejudice against one of the parties or the making of prejudicial comments in the presence of the jury is evidence of improper considerations. International Union, supra; Sanchez, supra. This court finds the decision in United S…
-
Burkett v. State, 731 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…iffin v. State, 517 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1987). The resentencing that this court ordered the trial court to conduct could not be accomplished by simply excising the improper portion of the sentence; it required additional consideration. See Cox v. State, 557 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, appellant must be resentenced again, and this time appellant must be present. In appellant’s second issue, which is the court’s alleged error in sentencing appellant to an upward departure, the State again concedes…
-
State v. Devoney, 675 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…f incident outside courtroom); International Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 675 v. Kinder, 573 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (courthouse custodian exhorted jurors to give large award to plaintiff); Bickel v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (allegation juror performed independent experiment and related results to panel); Snook v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 So. 2d 496, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (allegation juror conducted own experiment and reported results t…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark Summer Velsor and Georgia Lee Velsor v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Ronald Miller, 329 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Snook v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)