ROUEDE CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EAU GALLIE, 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.
Rouede Construction appeals a jury verdict finding it negligent for failing to discover forged checks by its bookkeeper within a reasonable time. The court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions properly explained the depositor's duty to examine paid checks and that an unintentional juror misstatement during voir dire did not warrant a new trial.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury instructions as given constituted a fair and impartial statement of law. The court also held that an unintentional failure by a juror to disclose that he had conducted real estate transactions in the office of the plaintiff's attorney's partner did not prejudice the plaintiff or warrant a new trial.
“A careful examination of the charge given by the court considered in its entirety is a fair and impartial statement of the law to be applied to the facts to be considered by the jury.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing jury instructions—they must be examined holistically rather than in isolation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRouede Construction's bookkeeper forged checks drawn against the corporation's account over a seven-month period. The bank (First National Bank of Eau…
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.
Plaintiff Rouede Construction, Inc., appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the defendant First National Bank of Eau Gallie.
Plaintiff corporation brought an action against defendant for honoring forged checks drawn against the corporation account. The bank alleged that the corporation was negligent in not discovering the forgeries earlier than it did
*376The defendant corporation’s bookkeeper forged over a period of seven months the checks honored by the bank. The bookkeeper, because of his position, was able to cover up his forgeries but they were discovered about a month after the last check was written.
The first point raised on this appeal is the failure of the court to give a requested charge to the jury to the effect that a depositor in a bank fulfills his duty to examine paid checks when such duty is entrusted to an employee believed to be honest. A careful examination of the charge given by the court considered in its entirety is a fair and impartial statement of the law to be applied to the facts to be considered by the jury. Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113.
Secondly the plaintiff claims it was deprived of a fair trial because a juror had given false answer to a certain question on Voir Dire. The basis for this claim is that a juror who was later named foreman of the jury stated that he did not know either counsel or the partner of either counsel. After the jury had retired to consider its verdict, the counsel for plaintiff learned that said juror had closed a number of real estate loans in the office of his partner.
The Court at the hearing on Motion for New Trial considered this question and it was shown that the juror did not know at the time that he was questioned on Voir Dire that the lawyer in whose office he closed the loans was a partner of the attorney for the plaintiff and that there was no sign on the office door or other indication that the two attorneys were partners. The Court was correct in denying Motion for New Trial in that the unintentional failure to disclose such a fact did not prejudice the plaintiff. Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Summerlin, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So.2d 12.
Other points raised on the appeal have-been considered but discussion thereof is-unnecessary.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and SMITH,. CULVER, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jefferson Mitchell v. State, 458 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…or example, the juror was not aware of her nephew’s employment or the question were reasonably susceptible to being interpreted as an inquiry about the juror’s immediate family. Compare Rouede Construction, Inc. v. First National Bank of Eau Gallie, 177 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1965). No such reason appears in the instant case for the juror’s untruthful response. Even assuming, as the trial court found, that the juror had no intent to deceive, nevertheless relief will be afforded where (1) the question propou…
-
Donnie Owens v. State, 468 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Justus v. State, 438 So. 2d 358 (Fla.1983); State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Rouede v. First National Bank of Eau Gallie, 177 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).…
Authorities Cited
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Petroleum Carriers Corp. v. Summerlin, 112 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)