RICHARD PAULETTE AND CAROLYN WILLIAMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANELSON ULYSSE, 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.
In a personal injury case, the trial court improperly set aside a jury verdict on the disputed amount of past medical expenses after granting a directed verdict on entitlement. The appellate court held that the trial judge lacked authority to override the jury verdict using evidence not presented to the jury, particularly where the defendant failed to object to jury instructions submitting the issue to the jury.
The trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict. The defendant cannot assert that an issue was not a jury issue when he did not object to jury instructions and a verdict form that gave the issue to the jury. The procedure utilized by the trial judge to override the verdict is unauthorized and violated the appellant's right to have the disputed issue determined by the jury.
[1] A trial court errs in setting aside a jury verdict as to a disputed amount when the parties did not agree that the issue would be determined by the judge and the jury was…
[2] A party cannot assert that an issue was not a jury issue after failing to object to jury instructions and a verdict form that submitted that issue to the jury.
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“Appellee cannot now assert that an issue was not a jury issue when he did not object to jury instructions and a verdict form giving that very issue to the jury.”
Establishes that the defendant waived challenge to jury determination by failing to object to jury instructions and verdict form on the disputed amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a personal injury case in which the trial court granted a directed verdict as to entitlement to past medical expenses for four months but res…
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 Setoff cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
This cause is before us on appellant’s motion for clarification. We grant the motion for clarification, withdraw our former opinion of April 30, 2014, and substitute this clarifying opinion.
In this personal injury case, where the trial court granted directed verdict as to entitlement to past medical expenses for four months but reserved ruling as to the disputed amount of expenses, the court erred in setting aside a jury verdict as to the disputed amount.
Appellee claims that the issues of entitlement to past medical expenses and the disputed amount were taken away from the jury by the grant of the directed verdict. However, the parties never reached an agreement concerning whether the disputed amount would be determined by the judge or the jury. A motion for summary judgment was never presented to the court to establish a lack of disputed facts. The record indicates that the jury was presented evidence, instructed, and given a verdict form permitting it to decide the issues. After the verdict, the trial judge conducted a hearing and overrode the verdict based on evidence, of questionable admissibility, never presented to the jury. Appellee cannot now assert that an issue was not a jury issue when he did not object to jury instructions and a verdict form giving that very issue to the jury. See Cocca v. Smith, 821 So.2d 328, 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In addition, the procedure utilized by the trial judge to override the verdict is unauthorized and denied appellant’s right to have the disputed issue determined by the jury.
We, therefore, VACATE the Final Judgment, QUASH the post-verdict order, and REMAND and DIRECT the trial court to reconsider the issue of setoff in the context of the jury award.
LEWIS, C.J., and MAKAR, J„ concur.