FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MORRIS JOSEPH STEWART, 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 the denial of its motion for a new trial based on an allegedly inconsistent jury verdict. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that claims of inconsistent verdicts must be raised before the jury is discharged to be preserved for appeal.
A party cannot preserve an inconsistent verdict claim by raising it for the first time in a post-trial motion after jury discharge. To preserve the issue, the party must raise it before the jury is discharged, allowing the trial court to reinstructruct the jury and send it back for further deliberations. The DOT waived its inconsistent verdict argument by failing to raise it before the jury was discharged.
[1] To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict, a party must raise the issue before the jury is discharged.
[2] A trial court may reinstruct the jury and send it back for further deliberations if an inconsistent verdict is raised before discharge.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict, the party claiming inconsistency must raise the issue before the jury is discharged. If the trial court agrees, the trial court may reinstruct the jury and send it back for further deliberations.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for preserving inconsistent verdict claims and the remedy available when raised timely
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury in a personal injury case found that Stewart had not sustained any permanent loss of an important bodily function or permanent injury from an a…
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 Inconsistent Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
We affirm the denial of appellant’s, Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), motion for a new trial. However, we write to comment on the DOT’s argument that Owen v. Morrisey, 793 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), review dismissed as improvidently granted, 831 So. 2d 142 (Fla.2002), stands for the proposition that an inconsistent verdict can be raised as a basis in a motion for new trial after the jury has been discharged.
The DOT claims that the jury returned an inconsistent verdict on damages where the jury found that Stewart had not sustained any permanent loss of an important bodily function or permanent injury as a result of the accident, yet at the same time awarded damages for future medical expenses and lost income.
Appellee argues that the DOT’s claim for a new trial based on an inconsistent verdict was not preserved since the issue was not raised before the jury was discharged. We agree.
The DOT argues that in its motion for new trial, it claimed that the “verdict [was] inconsistent, contrary to the law and the evidence and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and should be reversed. See Owen v. Morrisey, 793 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).” In relying upon Owen, the DOT argues that an inconsistent verdict can be raised for the first time in a motion for new trial after the jury has been discharged.
We reject that notion. In Owen, appellant appealed a final judgment in favor of appellees maintaining that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, excessive and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. See id. at 1018. This court held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial on causation and damages where the verdict was inconsistent and excessive. See id. The court held that the verdict was inconsistent and excessive because the jury awarded Owen the future economic losses for medical expenses over his life expectancy of 30 years and earning ability over his working-life expectancy of 20 years without a finding that Owen sustained a permanent injury. See id. at 1023. No discussion was had as to when the trial court was apprised of the inconsistent verdict.
To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict, the party claiming inconsistency must raise the issue before the jury is discharged. If the trial court agrees, the trial court may reinstruct the jury and send it back for further deliberations. See Cocca v. Smith, 821 So. 2d 328, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
This procedure allows the jury an opportunity to “correct” the inconsistency. See id. This procedure is in contrast to what is needed to challenge an inadequate verdict, which a party may raise for the first time in a post-trial motion. See id. This court has consistently held that a party’s failure to object or otherwise inform the court of an inconsistent verdict before the jury is dismissed waives the inconsistency in the verdict as a point on appeal. See Hendelman v. Lion Country Safari, Inc., 609 So. 2d 766, 766-67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(Dell, J., concurring specially), review dismissed, 618 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1993).
It follows that a party may not circumvent these cases by later arguing the verdict is inadequate or contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. See id. at 767. It logically follows that most inconsistent verdicts, in some respect, would be either inadequate or contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. See id.; see also C.G. Chase Constr. Co. v. Colon, 725 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 740 So. 2d 527 (Fla.1999).
However, where the thrust of DOT’s objection to the verdict was based on the inconsistency between an award for future economic damages and no finding of permanent injury, the DOT waived any error by not raising this issue before the jury was discharged.
AFFIRMED.
POLEN, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Progressive Select Ins. Co., Inc. v. Lorenzo, 49 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…arent on the face of the final verdict, the Insurer was under an obligation to raise the issue before discharge of the Jury or suffer the loss of the issue in post trial proceedings and on appeal. In Florida Department of Transportation v. Stewart, 844 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), where we faced the same issue presented by this case, we held: “To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict, the party claiming inconsistency must raise the issue before the jury is discharged. If the trial court agrees, t…1 / 2
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 53 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…llee had not sustained a permanent injury created a true inconsistent verdict. “To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict, the party claiming inconsistency must raise the issue before the jury is discharged.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Stewart, 844 So. 2d 773, 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accord Wiggs & Maale Constr. Co. v. Harris, 348 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Because appellant failed to preserve the issue for review by raising it before the jury was discharged, we also affirm the trial court’s o…
-
Lucas v. Orchid Island Props., Inc., 982 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…rt agree that the verdict is inconsistent, the case can be resubmitted and the jury afforded the opportunity to correct the inconsistency. See, e.g., Nissan Motor Co. v. Alvarez, 891 So. 2d 4, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Stewart, 844 So. 2d 773, 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). And, there was such a timely objection in this case. Immediately upon the return of the verdict, the trial judge raised the issue of a possible inconsistent verdict. During the colloquy that followed, OIP’s counsel did argu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cocca v. Smith, 821 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Owen v. Morrisey, 793 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Nava Hendelman v. Lion Country Safari, Inc., 609 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- C.G. Chase Constr. Co. v. Ada Beatriz Hernandez Colon, 725 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Morrisey v. Owen, 831 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2002)