GRANADA GARDENS ASSOCIATION, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND BIG LEAGUE MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTA CASTRO AND JUAN HERNANDEZ, HER HUSBAND, CONSUELO LOPEZ AND LUIS GONZALEZ, 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.
Granada Gardens Association and Big League Management appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial after the jury returned what the trial court deemed an inconsistent verdict. The appellate court held that the initial jury verdict was actually consistent and proper, reversing the new trial order and directed verdict.
The initial verdict was consistent because a jury could reasonably find negligence without finding it was the legal cause of damage to all plaintiffs. The directed verdict on past medical expenses was improper because the record supported the jury's initial verdict. The trial court's order granting a new trial was reversed.
[1] A jury verdict is consistent if the jury could reasonably determine that while defendants were negligent, their negligence was not the legal cause of damage to all plaint…
[2] A trial court may not grant a new trial based on supposed inconsistencies in a jury verdict when the verdict is, in fact, consistent.
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“Contrary to the conclusion of the trial court, the initial verdict was consistent, as the jury could reasonably have determined that while defendants were negligent, their negligence was not the legal cause of damage to all plaintiffs.”
Establishes that finding negligence for some but not all plaintiffs is legally consistent and does not warrant a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs brought suit against defendants for negligence-related injuries. The jury found defendants' negligence was the legal cause of damage to thr…
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 Past Medical Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees, Luis Gonzalez, Consuelo Lopez, Marta Castro, and her husband, Juan Hernandez (collectively, “plaintiffs”), brought suit against appellants, Granada Gardens Association, LLC and Big League Management, Inc. (“defendants”), seeking damages for injuries suffered as a result of defendants’ negligence. The trial court ordered a new trial based on supposed inconsistencies in the jury verdict.1
The jury determined that defendants’ negligence was the legal cause of damage to Gonzalez, Lopez, and Castro, but not Hernandez. The jury awarded Gonzalez, Lopez, and Castro non-economic damages totaling $100,000,2 but awarded nothing to any of the plaintiffs for past medical expenses. After the jury verdict was read, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Gonzalez on his past medical expenses in the amount of $10,000. Then, believing the verdict was inconsistent, the trial court asked the jury to deliberate again and, if possible, return with a “consistent” verdict. The jury returned a second verdict, finding that defendants’ negligence was the legal cause of damage to all four plaintiffs, and awarding Hernandez $2500. After thanking the jurors for their service and discharging them, the trial court issued, what was in effect, an order granting new trial, and the judge recused himself.
Contrary to the conclusion of the trial court, the initial verdict was consistent, as the jury could reasonably have determined that while defendants were negligent, their negligence was not the legal cause of damage to all plaintiffs. See Cocca v. Smith, 821 So.2d 328, 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order granting a new trial with instruction to enter a final judgment consistent with the first verdict. We also reverse the directed verdict entered in favor of Hernandez in the amount of $10,000. See Schreidell v. Shoter, 500 So.2d 228, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”) (citing Holmes v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 468 So.2d 552, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)). Here, the record reveals facts supporting the jury’s first verdict. We affirm on all other issues.
*310Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Holmes v. DON Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 468 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Cocca v. Smith, 821 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Keene Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. Pennell, 614 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1993)