BRUCE MICHAEL FREEDMAN AND DELORES FREEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLOS DE LA CUESTA AND GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Peremptory Challenges cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment entered against the plaintiffs in this personal injury, negligent driving case, finding no merit to either point raised on appeal. The record does not demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of the expert’s opinion and testimony. Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1981). The plaintiffs knew about the expert, and were aware that she would testify. Moreover, the testimony was based on information listed in the expert’s report. There can be no claim that this testimony came as a surprise to plaintiffs. Binger; Melrose Nursery, Inc. v. Hunt, 443 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In view of the entire trial, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion.
Additionally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion based on juror non-disclosure. Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334, 340 (Fla.2002); State Farm, Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Levine, 875 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Here, there was no showing that the nondisclosure was “substantial and important” so that had the facts been known, plaintiffs would have exercised a peremptory challenge on the jurors. Roberts, 814 So. 2d at 341.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pub. Health Tr. OF Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Gelerme Metellus and Marie Lacroix Metellus, 948 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…So. 2d 239 (Fla.1995). Second, and quite separately, there was no showing, as is also required, that counsel would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror had he been given the information in question. See Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA2006). Reversed. FLETCHER, J., concurs.…
-
Tromondo Tobias Bolling v. State, 61 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…not reveal she had been in a divorce and was the target of collection efforts, in part because there was no showing that counsel would have exercised4 a peremptory challenge against the juror, had he known the information); Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for new trial based on juror nondisclosure when there was no showing that the undisclosed information was substantial and important or that plaintiffs would have exercised a peremptory…
-
Marybeth Morgan v. Milton, 105 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…as of potential bias. She argues the false answers denied her the opportunity to make an informed decision in selecting the jury. We review the trial court’s deci [*548] sion to deny a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). At first blush, the denial of a new trial here seems unfair to Ms. Morgan. She is correct that her right to inquire into previous litigation experience is denied when a juror falsely says she has never been involved in litig…
Authorities Cited
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)
- Roberts v. Francisco Tejada, M.D., 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002)
- Melrose Nursery, Inc. v. Hunt, 443 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Levine, 875 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)