LUCINDA JEFFERSON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THEODORE (TED) WALKER, 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.
Lucinda and Thomas Jefferson appealed a jury verdict in their favor against the City of West Palm Beach and police officer Ted Walker after Lucinda was arrested, subjected to excessive force while pregnant, and suffered miscarriages during incarceration. The court reversed, finding fundamental error in a jury instruction that improperly linked the verdicts for both defendants.
The court held that the jury instruction was fundamental error because it improperly prevented the jury from returning separate verdicts, potentially misleading them to plaintiffs' detriment. The jury might have found the city liable for its jail employees' actions while finding the officer not liable, but the instruction precluded this outcome.
[1] A court may notice fundamental error apparent in the record in the interest of justice, even if not argued or objected to below.
[2] An instruction that requires a jury to return a verdict against both defendants or neither, when the evidence could support a verdict against one but not the other, const…
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“The instruction given could reasonably have misled the jury to plaintiffs' detriment, and we consider it fundamental error inasmuch as the jury might very well have found against the city but not against the officer”
Explains why the jury instruction constituted fundamental error—it prevented the jury from rendering separate verdicts even though the defendants had potentially different liability bases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLucinda Jefferson was arrested by officer Walker for disturbing the peace while three months pregnant. During the arrest, she received injuries from t…
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 Joint And Several Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs, Lucinda Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson, appeal a final judgment after jury verdict in favor of defendant city and its police officer. We reverse.
Looking solely to plaintiffs’ most favorable allegations and proof, we observe: Lucinda Jefferson was arrested and convicted for disturbing the peace by officer Walker who was acting within the scope of his employment; during the arrest she *207received injuries from the officer’s excessive and unnecessary force; she was three months pregnant and after her arrest she complained of abdominal pains; during her incarceration, where she was left in a helpless state and ignored, she continued to sustain pain coupled with hemorrhaging and suffered two miscarriages.
After the case was under deliberation the jury returned and asked whether they were allowed to separate the verdicts as to the two defendants. The court, without objection, instructed “that the verdict shall be against — if it is against either defendant, it should be against both defendants”.
Plaintiffs’ failure to object to the court’s instruction in this instance is not fatal. In the interest of justice this court may notice fundamental error apparent in the record whether or not it has been argued in the briefs or made the subject of an assignment of error or of an objection or exception in the court below.1
The instruction given could reasonably have misled the jury to plaintiffs’ detriment,2 and we consider it fundamental error inasmuch as the jury might very well have found against the city but not against the officer, i. e., the jury may have found the city liable for the action or lack of it taken by the latter’s jail employees while finding officer Walker not liable.
Had plaintiffs not made allegations as to the city’s jail employees the instruction given would have been proper.
We have considered plaintiffs’ other points and find them to be without merit insofar as reversible error is concerned.
We therefore reverse and remand this cause for a new trial solely on the question of the defendant city’s liability for the acts or omissions of its jail employees.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abrams v. Paul, 453 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ed. Even if the majority’s conclusion that appellants’ objection was not timely raised in the motion for new trial is correct, an error of this magnitude should nevertheless be treated as fundamental error. See, Jefferson v. City of West Palm Beach, 233 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 4th [*832] DCA 1970); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bleemer, 327 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Vega v. Mahfuz, 367 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979); Cf., Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla…
-
Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…the case will determine whether or not a particular omission or commission constitutes fundamental error. Williams v. State, Fla.1971, 247 So. 2d 425; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 169; Jefferson v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 206; Radford v. Town of Palm Beach Shores, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 36. In our opinion the unobjected to evidence of defendant’s involvement in a collateral crime does not, under the circumstances of this case, fall within the “fundamental error” doctr…
-
Hinton Roy Johnson, Jr. v. Lasher Milling Co., Inc., 379 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…appellants contend, the error was of such fundamental proportions as to make objection unnecessary. Morrison v. Hansen, 213 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); Painter v. Town of Groveland, 79 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1955); Jefferson v. City of West Palm Beach, 233 So. 2d 206 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828 (Fla.3rd DCA 1976); Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588, 195 So. 399 (1940). We find no merit in appellants’ contention that the instructions constituted a “misapplication of the law”. We find it…
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
- Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Butz v. Elwood J. Rineheart, 88 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1956)