LAUREL BEREZ AND BURTON BEREZ, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
LUISA TREADWAY AND CHARLES TREADWAY, APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS
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 a dog bite injury case, the jury returned an internally inconsistent verdict by awarding the plaintiff economic damages but zero damages for pain and suffering and other intangible harms. The trial court improperly recalled the jury after discharge to reconsider the verdict. The appellate court reversed, holding that a jury cannot be recalled after discharge to correct an inconsistent verdict.
A jury may not be recalled after discharge to reconsider an inconsistent verdict. The trial court's motion for mistrial based on the internally inconsistent verdict should have been granted, and the error could not be corrected by recalling the jury.
[1] A jury verdict that awards economic damages but zero damages for pain and suffering is internally inconsistent and warrants a mistrial.
[2] Once a jury has been discharged, it cannot be recalled to reconsider an inconsistent verdict.
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“Immediately after the jury was initially discharged, appellants moved for a mistrial based upon the zero damage award. This motion should have been granted based upon the internally inconsistent verdict.”
Establishes that the zero damages award for intangible injuries while awarding economic damages constituted reversible error requiring mistrial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaurel Berez was injured by dog bites. A jury awarded her damages for past and future medical expenses and loss of wages, but awarded zero damages for…
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 Sanctity Of Jury Deliberations cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
In this case involving injuries caused by several dog bites, the jury initially returned a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding Laurel Berez damages for past and future medical expenses and loss of wages. Zero damages were awarded for pain and suffering, physical impairment, permanent scarring and other intangible consequences of her injuries. After the jury had been discharged and. left the courtroom, defense counsel requested that the jury be recalled and instructed on nominal damages in view of the zero damage award. Over appellants’ objections, the jury was escorted back into the courtroom and then was instructed to wait in the jury room. In due course the jury received further instruction, retired to consider a verdict, and after deliberating, awarded Laurel Berez $200.00 for past pain and suffering and other intangible damages and $100.00 for future damages. Appellants’ motion for new trial was denied, and this appeal was commenced.
We do not reach the issue of the adequacy of the entire damage award or its relationship to the evidence. Immediately after the jury was initially discharged, appellants moved for a mistrial based upon the zero damage award. This motion should have been granted based upon the internally inconsistent verdict. See Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Ledbetter v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We further hold that once the jury was discharged the error could not be corrected by recalling the jury. See Fitzell v. Rama Industries, Inc., 416 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Kirkland v. Robbins, 385 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 779 (Fla.1981); United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Gulf Florida Dev. Corp., 365 So. 2d 748, 749-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Any other rule would introduce an element of uncertainty into the present, settled sanctity of jury deliberations. The better rule, which we follow here, is that a jury may not be recalled after discharge to reconsider an inconsistent verdict.
We find no merit in any other points on appeal-or cross appeal.
We reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…e routinely reviewed cases without the requirement of a contemporaneous objection where a finding of inadequacy was based on answers to special interrogatories. See, e.g., Daigneault; Mason. We implicitly rejected a requirement in Berez v. Treadway, 599 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Yet we struggled with this issue in Hendelman v. Lion Country Safari, 609 So. 2d 766 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1992) (Dell, J., concurring and Anstead, J., dissenting), review dismissed, 618 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1993). The first and fifth di…
-
Simpson v. Julita Stone, 662 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…d women could not have reached the instant verdict. Griffis. Accordingly, we also affirm the trial court’s denial of Lois’ request for a new trial. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, J., concurs. HARRIS, J., concurs specially, with opinion. . Berez v. Treadway, 599 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). . While a chiropractor testified that Simpson would require chiropractic care for the rest of her life,- Simpson presented no evidence of having sought or obtained treatment from January 1991 through the time of trial in Octobe…
-
Nava Hendelman v. Lion Country Safari, Inc., 609 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…sistent verdict would be either inadequate or contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the dissenting opinion. In my view, the cases cited do not apply to this case. For example, in Berez v. Treadway, 599 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the jury, in a personal injury case, awarded damages for medical expenses and lost wages but nothing for past and future pain and suffering and other intangible damages. After the court discharged the jury and the jury had left…1 / 2
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
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & Chapman & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Fla. Dev. Corp., 365 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Smith v. State, 330 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Kirkland v. Robbins, 385 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Fitzell v. Rama Indus., Inc., 416 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- J. R. Ledbetter, M.D. v. Todd, 418 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)