PASHA EVANS, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, EARLINE CHAPPELL, AND EARLINE CHAPPELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM ROTH, 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.
Appellants, plaintiffs in a personal injury action, appealed an adverse jury verdict, arguing the trial court erred by denying a directed verdict on liability and refusing to grant a new trial based on allegations of racial prejudice in the courtroom and jury room. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in submitting the liability issue to the jury and no abuse of discretion in denying the new trial motion.
The trial court properly denied the directed verdict motion because the evidence was susceptible to two views on how the accident occurred, making liability a proper jury question. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion, as the spectator's affidavit regarding a prospective juror's statements provided insufficient basis for finding courtroom prejudice (particularly after the juror was excused for cause), and the foreman's post-verdict affidavit alone was insufficient to warrant upsetting the trial judge's discretion.
“The evidence was susceptible to two views as to how the accident occurred and, therefore, it was proper for the trial court to deny the motion for directed verdict and to submit the issue of liability to the jury.”
Establishes the standard for denying directed verdict motions when evidence permits multiple interpretations.
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 action arising from an accident. The evidence was susceptible to two different interpretations regarding how the accident o…
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 Jury Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action.
The principal issues preserved for review by this court are the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict of liability in favor of the appellants, and the failure to grant a new trial upon the motion thereon because of alleged prejudice and bias of the jury, as reflected by the affidavits of a spectator in the courtroom and the foreman of the jury which were tendered with the motion for new trial. The purport of the affidavits was to show an atmosphere of prejudice towards the race of the plaintiffs within the courtroom and the jury room. We affirm.
No error has been demonstrated in the denial of the motion for directed verdict. The evidence was susceptible to two views as to how the accident occurred and, therefore, it was proper for the trial court to deny the motion for directed verdict and to submit the issue of liability to the jury. See: Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270, 9 So.2d 369; Cadore v. Karp, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 806. As to the failure to grant a new trial at the time of the hearing on the motion because of the affidavits referred to above, no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge has been demonstrated. See: Alicot v. Dade County, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 302; Freeman v. Bandlow, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 547. The principal import of the spectator’s affidavit, that because of statements of a prospective juror [while in the courtroom and during voir dire examination] that he was prejudiced against the race of the plaintiffs, could afford no basis for showing an atmosphere in the courtroom which would prejudice the jury’s verdict, particularly when the trial judge excused the prospective juror for “cause”. The affidavit of the foreman of the jury, that in his opinion remarks made in the jury room prejudiced the minds of other jurors [but not his], would not appear to be sufficient to warrant the upsetting of the trial judge’s discretion by this court in denying the motion. In this re*547gard, see: Marks v. State Road Department, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 771; McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1960, 123 So.2d 339; Magid v. Mozo, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 772.
It appears that the rule discussed by the Supreme Court in Marks v. State Road Department, supra, is particularly applicable to the instant case wherein the jurors had been polled after the rendition of their verdict.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. Int'l Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 563 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rtial given the fact that the plaintiff was Spanish speaking, and the jurors responded affirmatively. . As this is a civil case, the sixth amendment portion of the court's analysis is not applicable here. . Appellees rely in part on Evans v. Roth, 168 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert, denied, 174 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1965). Evans involved, in part, a racially prejudicial statement made by a member of the venire who was excused for cause. That statement was held not to constitute a basis for granting a new tri…
-
Maler v. Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…(Fla. 2d DCA 1987); (c) a juror makes vile racial, religious, or ethnic slurs against a party or witness during trial or jury deliberations, United States v. Heller, 785 F. 2d 1524, 1527-28 (11th Cir.1986) (mistrial required); compare Evans v. Roth, 168 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); or (d) a juror, inter alia, goes to scene of the property involved in the case and reports his observations to the other jurors. United States v. Posner, 644 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.Fla.1986) (new trial granted). In each of these cases…
-
Laurent v. Honda OF Kissimmee, 27 Fla. Supp. 183 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1966)…ed to the jury and not passed upon by the court as question of law. Cadore v. Karp, 91 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1957). Where evidence is susceptible of two views as to how accident occurred, it is proper to submit issue of liability to jury. Evans v. Roth, 168 So. 2d 546 (Fla. App. 1964), reh. den. From all the facts and circumstances together with reasonable inferences which could or may have been drawn therefrom the lower court was in error in withdrawing the case from the jury and directing a verdict for the def…
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
- Marks v. State Rd. Dep't, 69 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1954)
- Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1942)
- McALLISTER Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 123 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1959)
- McCRORY v. Kelly, 91 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1956)
- Cadore v. Karp, 91 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1957)
- Freeman v. Bandlow, 143 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Magid v. Mozo, 135 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Fairbanks v. Robertson, 151 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1942)
- Alicot v. Dade Cnty., 132 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)