PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., APPELLANT, .
v.
JAMES NAUGLE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LUCINDA NAUGLE, DECEASED, 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 court held that the trial court must interview a second juror due to potential misconduct involving receipt of non-record information about a prior verdict. Other issues raised were without reversible error.
Following a retrial on damages, it was discovered that a juror received a text message from another juror who had googled the previous verdict. This r…
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 Juror Interview cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the third appearance of this case in this court. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 103 So.3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Naugle I”); Naugle v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 133 So.3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (Naugle II). In Naugle I, we affirmed on the issue of liability1, but reversed for “a new trial on the issue of damages.” 103 So.3d at 949.
After the retrial on damages, the court interviewed the jury foreperson. The interview disclosed that, after the return of the verdict in the damages retrial, the foreperson received a text message from a second juror which indicated that, over the weekend before the verdict, the second juror had googled the previous verdict in the case. Receipt of non-record information concerning the amount of the prior verdict is an overt act “ ‘which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.’ ” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1991) (quoting § 90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1987) (Law Revision Council Note-1976)); see also City of Winter Haven v. Allen, 589 So.2d 968, 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The existehce of the text message from the second juror established reasonable .grounds to believe that some juror .misconduct occurred, which constitutes a legal basis for an interview of the second juror. See Sterling v. Feldbaum, 980 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We therefore remand for the trial court to conduct an interview of the second juror.
We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find no reversible error. On the cross-appeal, the appellee waived the comparative fault issue by failing to cross-appeal that point in Naugle I. See Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So.2d 467, 469 (Fla.1976). We also note that appellee failed to lodge a specific objection as to the application of comparative fault at the retrial.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
GROSS, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Naugle (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…fense team gets.” He considered the number of lawyers 1 This is the fifth case in this Court arising from the underlying circuit court case. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 225 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 182 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Naugle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 133 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 103 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). representing both parties. He also considered the punitive nature of fees for reje…
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…defense team gets.” He considered the number of lawyers 1 This is the fifth case in this Court arising from the underlying circuit court case. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 225 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 182 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Naugle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 133 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 103 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). 2 representing both parties. He also conside…
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…fense team gets.” He considered the number of lawyers 1 This is the fifth case in this Court arising from the underlying circuit court case. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 225 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 182 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Naugle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 133 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 103 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). representing both parties. He also considered the punitive nature of fees for reje…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1991)
- Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1976)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Lucinda Naugle, 103 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Sterling v. David Feldbaum, M.D., 980 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- City OF Winter Haven v. Allen, 589 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Naugle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 133 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)