AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD HOEFFER AND LINDA HOEFFER, HIS WIFE, 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.
American Medical Systems appeals a trial court order granting a new trial after the jury verdict in its favor was overturned due to juror misconduct. The court affirmed the new trial order, holding that a juror's failure to disclose prior litigation in which she was a defendant warranted a new trial under the three-part test from De La Rosa v. Zequeira.
The court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial, holding that the juror's failure to disclose the debt-collection judgment constituted concealment under the three-part test from De La Rosa, as the omission prevented counsel from making an informed judgment that would likely have resulted in a peremptory challenge.
[1] A juror's nondisclosure of information during voir dire warrants a new trial only if the complaining party establishes that the information was relevant and material, the…
[2] A juror's nondisclosure of information during voir dire need not be intentional to constitute concealment.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A three-part test is used to determine whether a juror's failure to disclose information during voir dire warrants granting a new trial. See De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla.1995). "First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. Second, that the juror concealed the information during questioning. Lastly, that the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party's lack of diligence."”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for evaluating juror misconduct in voir dire.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Richard and Linda Hoeffer brought a products liability action against AMS in 1991. During voir dire, juror Badgett disclosed involvement in…
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 Nondisclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS) appeals a trial court order overturning a jury verdict in favor of AMS and ordering a new trial. We affirm.
Plaintiffs Richard and Linda Hoeffer brought this products liability action in 1991. During voir dire, counsel for the Hoeffers asked if anyone had been involved in prior litigation. A few veniremembers responded; potential juror Badgett did not. When subsequently asked by counsel for the Hoeffers whether she believed that there were cases that were legitimately brought, juror Badgett mentioned that she had been in court two or three times in a child-support matter, but that she would still be able to be fair and impartial. Later during the voir dire, counsel for AMS asked if there were a venire-member with experience in court as a party or a witness. Juror Badgett remained silent.
After a ten-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of AMS. Shortly before entry of final judgment, it was discovered that juror Badgett had been a co-defendant in a debt-collection action, which resulted in her entering a consent to judgment in the amount of $45,000. The Hoeffers moved for a new trial. After a juror interview, the trial court granted the motion, finding that juror Badgett had failed to disclose her involvement in the debt-collection action.
A three-part test is used to determine whether a juror’s failure to disclose information during voir dire warrants granting a new trial. See De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla.1995). “First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. Second, that the juror concealed the information during questioning. Lastly, that the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party’s lack of diligence.” Id.
The trial court made precisely these findings. AMS, however, contends that rather than concealing her previous involvement as a litigant, juror Badgett merely failed to volunteer this information. We disagree. In response to the questions about prior litigation, juror Badgett did not disclose litigation resulting in a substantial judgment against her. “Assuming, arguendo, that the juror had no intention of misleading counsel, the omission nonetheless prevented counsel from making an informed judgment — which would in all likelihood have resulted in a peremptory challenge.” Id. at 242 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Martha C. Hurst, M.D., 881 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…. Cohen, 816 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (juror in automobile negligence case resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff failed to reveal that nine years earlier he was the plaintiff in an automobile negligence case); Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Hoeffer, 723 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (juror failed to reveal judgment against her for $45,000 in debt-collection action); Young v. State, 720 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (remanded for further jury interviews where juror in criminal sexual abuse case did not revea…
Authorities Cited
- DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)