DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN TOMESKO, 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 Florida Department of Transportation appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for injuries suffered by Steven Tomesko when he was hit by a car while walking on a sidewalk on the Kennedy Boulevard Bridge in Tampa. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting DOT's arguments regarding alleged juror misconduct and DOT's claim that it was entitled to sovereign immunity.
The trial court properly denied the motion for new trial because DOT failed to demonstrate juror misconduct through proper procedures and failed to show the foreman's bias preexisted the trial. DOT was not entitled to a directed verdict because it failed to raise the sovereign immunity issue in its directed verdict motion, and the evidence supported the jury's finding that negligent maintenance of the bridge contributed to the accident.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct when the moving party fails to pursue the necessary procedures f…
[2] A defendant's motion for a new trial based on a jury foreman's letter complaining of wasteful business procedures and conduct of representatives during trial is properly…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“No abuse of discretion by the trial judge has been demonstrated in the denial of the motion for new trial.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing denial of motion for new trial and the court's conclusion that DOT failed to demonstrate grounds for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteven Tomesko was hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk of the Kennedy Boulevard Bridge across the Hillsborough River in Tampa. The bridge's dri…
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 Negligent Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Department of Transportation of the State of Florida (DOT), challenges the final judgment entered on a jury verr diet finding appellant liable for injuries that appellee, Steven Tomesko, suffered when he was hit by a car while he was walking on the sidewalk of the Kennedy Boulevard Bridge across the Hillsborough River in Tampa.
We affirm.
We write in this case to explain our af-firmance in regard to two of the five issues raised by DOT. We affirm in regard to the other three issues without discussion. DOT first seeks reversal on the basis of the trial court’s denial of its motion for new trial. Several months after final judgment DOT filed an “emergency” motion for new trial on the basis of “juror misconduct.” At no time did DOT seek to request or activate the necessary procedures for a jury interview to determine whether there was in fact any juror misconduct during the trial or the jury deliberations.
DOT s motion for new trial was based on a letter written sometime after the trial was over by the jury foreman to the secretary of DOT. The letter complained of what the jury foreman perceived to be wasteful business procedures practiced by the DOT and the conduct of some of DOT’s representatives during the trial. There was no showing by DOT that the future jury foreman gave evasive or untruthful answers on voir dire. His business relationship with DOT was known and explored. It was also not shown that the foreman’s obvious exasperation with DOT as expressed in the letter to the secretary did not arise as a result of the trial itself and did not preexist the trial. No abuse of discretion by the trial judge has been demonstrated in the denial of the motion for new trial.
DOT also argues that the trial judge erred when a directed verdict was not granted in favor of DOT because the hazardous condition alleged to exist on the Kennedy Boulevard bridge because it was wet and slick at the time of the accident did not result from negligent maintenance on an operational level. DOT argues instead that any defect in the bridge leading to hazardous conditions was the result of planning level activity for which DOT enjoys sovereign immunity. DOT’s argument must fail because it did not raise that issue in a motion for directed verdict. Even had it done so, we find the evidence supports the jury’s verdict that the accident resulted in part because of DOT’s negligent maintenance of the driving surface of the bridge. We affirm the judgment entered below.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., PARKER, J., and CASE, JAMES R., Associate Judge, concur.