STEVEN BLENDER, M.D., AND STEVEN L. BLENDER, M.D., P.A., APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
JEAN MALECKI AND PETER MALECKI, HER HUSBAND, 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 medical malpractice case, the trial court granted a new trial after the jury returned a verdict for the defendants when it was discovered that jurors had made multiple requests for deposition testimony that the bailiff improperly denied without notifying the judge or attorneys. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial.
The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting the motion for new trial. When an occurrence outside the record prevents the trial court from exercising its discretion and involves evidence crucial to one party's case, the appellate court cannot speculate on how the trial court would have ruled or state that the occurrence did not affect the case outcome.
[1] A bailiff's failure to communicate a jury's request for deposition testimony to the judge constitutes an occurrence outside the record that may warrant a new trial.
[2] A trial court has broad discretion in granting a motion for a new trial, and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
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“Where an occurrence outside the record prevents a trial court from exercising its discretion, we cannot speculate how the trial court would have ruled on the matter. Thus, we cannot state that this occurrence did not affect the outcome of the case.”
Establishes the principle that when jury requests for evidence are improperly handled outside the court's knowledge, the appellate court cannot determine whether it affected the verdict and must defer to the trial court's discretion to grant a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring jury deliberations in a medical malpractice case, three jurors on three separate occasions requested copies of deposition testimony that had be…
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 Jury Deliberations cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Steven L. Blender, M.D., and Steven L. Blender, M.D., P.A., defendants in a medical malpractice case, appeal from an order granting the plaintiffs, Dr. Jean Malecki and husband Peter Malecki, a new trial. The trial court entered the order for new trial following a jury verdict for the defendants. We affirm.
During the jury’s deliberations, three jurors asked the bailiff orally and in writing to bring them certain depositions that had been read during trial. Each time, the bailiff instructed the jurors that they could not have the depositions because they were not in evidence and not in the jury room. The bailiff never communicated these requests to the judge. The lawyers also were not aware of the jury’s requests. After six hours of deliberations, the jury found no negligence on the part of the defendants.
Once the judge discharged the jury, plaintiffs’ lawyers spoke to some of the jurors. During the conversation, plaintiffs’ lawyers learned of the jurors’ requests to the bailiff. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial and a motion to permit interview of the jurors. The trial judge subsequently conducted a hearing on the matter. The bailiff was sworn in and testified that on three occasions, different jurors came out of the jury room and asked for copies of deposition testimony. The bailiff testified that he responded, “Anything in evidence is in the jury room. If it’s not in evidence, you can’t have it.” He admitted that he did not communicate any of this to the court. The court then granted the plaintiffs’ motion to interview the jurors.
.At the hearing to interview the jurors, three jurors appeared before the trial court and testified. Based upon their testimony, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. We agree with the trial court’s order that the evidence about which the jury expressed concern was crucial to plaintiffs’ case.
Where an occurrence outside the record prevents a trial court from exercising its discretion, we cannot speculate how the trial court would have ruled on the matter. Thus, we cannot state that this occurrence did not affect the outcome of the case. The standard of review of a trial court’s grant of a motion for new trial is whether the trial court abused its broad discretion. Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1981). Without a clear showing of an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse a trial court’s decision to grant a new trial. See Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its broad discretion.
Regarding plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, we affirm, finding no merit in the arguments raised.
WARNER, J., and DIMITROULEAS, WILLIAM P., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sears Roebuck & Co. & Chris Picardi & Kent Spires v. Polchinski, 636 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…he matters turn to food for thought, the problem arises. Because a jury may logically believe that questions answered by the bailiff are answers from the trial court, such unauthorized substantive communications are improper. See Blender v. Malecki, 606 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 617 So. 2d 318 (Fla.1993). We join our sister court in strongly disapproving any ex parte [*1372] communication between the court and a deliberating jury or between the bailiff and a deliberating jury without the fo…
-
Raymond H. Castenholz, M.D. v. Bergmann, 696 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ing, and the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the Bergmanns’ lack of diligence. De La Rosa, 659 So. 2d at 241. Our review of the record does not disclose the “clear showing of an abuse of discretion,” Blender v. Malecki, 606 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), necessary to reverse the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial. To the contrary, to affirm the trial court’s decision we need look no further than the circumstances surrounding the final juror to be interviewed by the…
Authorities Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1981)
- City OF Tampa v. Redner, 597 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)