WILLIAM PARKER AND TAINO FARMS, LTD., APPELLANTS,
v.
GRAHAM & JAMES, N/K/A GRAHAM & JAMES L.L.P., 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.
Parker and Taino Farms appealed a defense judgment in a legal malpractice action against Graham & James, claiming their attorneys performed inadequately in the underlying federal case involving contaminated fertilizer. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the law firm, finding no reversible error in the summary judgment or verdict form.
The court affirmed the defense judgment, holding that any error in granting summary judgment on the verdict form claim was harmless because plaintiffs were permitted to argue this theory extensively to the jury, and the verdict form and instructions, considered as a whole, did not constitute reversible error.
[1] A trial court's error in granting summary judgment is harmless if the party was still permitted to argue the theory extensively to the jury.
[2] A jury instruction that charges one party's negligence to another party, when mirrored on the verdict form, is not reversible error when considered as a whole with the ve…
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“Notwithstanding the summary judgment in G & J's favor on the failure to proffer a proper verdict form, plaintiffs were still permitted to argue this theory extensively to the jury. Any possible error in granting the summary judgment is harmless.”
Establishes that harmless error analysis applies even where summary judgment was granted, because plaintiffs had full opportunity to present their argument to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Parker and Taino Farms purchased improperly treated fertilizer from Miami-Dade County that destroyed their papaya crop in the Bahamas. They…
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 Special Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
William Parker and Taino Farms, Ltd. [“plaintiffs”], appeal a defense judgment in a legal malpractice action. We affirm.
Plaintiffs, who raise papayas in Free-port, Grand Bahamas, bought improperly treated fertilizer from Miami-Dade County. The fertilizer destroyed the crop. Plaintiffs and a lender sued the County in federal court asserting breach of contract, negligence and strict liability. Plaintiffs were represented by Graham & James [“G & J”], and Frank Sexton. At trial, the jury returned an inconsistent verdict-finding liability on all theories but awarding damages on only two. Sexton accepted the court’s offer to re-instruct the jury with the same instructions. The second verdict was also inconsistent. The trial court entered a judgment on that verdict. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new damages trial, because of the confusing verdict. Overseas Private Invest. Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 47 F. 3d 1111 (11th Cir.1995). Plaintiffs discharged their attorneys and settled with the County.
Thereafter, plaintiffs sued G & J and Sexton in Dade County Circuit Court for malpractice asserting various deficiencies in counsel’s trial performance, including failure to proffer an adequate special verdict form with one damages question. Sexton settled with the plaintiffs. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment on that claim. At trial, the court charged the jury that G & J was liable for Sexton’s negligence, but declined to include the issue of Sexton’s separate negligence on the verdict form. The jury found that G & J was not negligent. Plaintiffs appeal.
We find no merit in plaintiffs’s issues on appeal. Notwithstanding the summary judgment in G & J’s favor on the failure to proffer a proper verdict form, plaintiffs were still permitted to argue this theory extensively to the jury. Any possible error in granting the summary judgment is harmless. See Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Inc., 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1951); Canto v. J.B. Ivey & Co., 595 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sansing v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 354 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Therefore, reversal on this basis is not required.
Turning to plaintiffs’s second issue, the propriety of the verdict form, here, the jury was instructed to charge Sexton’s negligence to G & J, and the verdict form mirrored the instruction. Hutton v. Sussman, 504 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). When we consider the verdict form and instructions, as a whole, it is apparent that the court did not commit reversible error in the verdict form üsed. Gallagher v. Federal Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Thus, this issue does not provide a basis for reversal.
Based on the foregoing, the defense judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. The Est. OF Stephen D. Levine, 87 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…Levine estate’s evidence did not support the estate’s claims. Any such objections were raised belatedly, and thus waived, and considering the verdict form and instructions collectively, as required, no error has been shown. Parker v. Graham & James, 834 So. 2d 881, 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citing Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)). D. Denial of UAIC’s Motion for Directed Verdict Finally, regarding UAIC’s arguments that the Levine estate failed to make a prima facie case and that “t…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1951)
- Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 47 F.3d 1111 (11th Cir. 1995)
- E.F. Hutton v. Sussman, 504 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Joseph v. Canto, Jr., 595 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Buddy L. Sansing and Virginia Sansing v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 354 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)