MARGARET LOCKHART AND BUEL LOCKHART, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
NELLIE PRUDOT AND JAMES PRUDOT, HER HUSBAND, 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.
A jury verdict of zero damages for pain and suffering is sustainable if the injury is not objectively verifiable and a jury could reasonably conclude no injury occurred. However, a new trial is required if a juror's similar accident experience, shared with the jury, cannot be shown to have had no improper influence.
During a trial for damages from a car accident, one juror was involved in a similar accident on the way to court, suffering no injury. He informed the…
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 Pain And Suffering Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
A verdict of zero damages for pain and suffering is sustainable in this case, where the injury is not objectively verifiable and a jury of reasonable persons would be justified in concluding that Mrs. Lock-hart was not injured.1 The jury’s verdict in favor of Mrs. Lockhart for $402 bore a note reading:
“$235.00 auto dam.
50.00 Dr. Trupp
35.00 Dr. Keller
52.00 Dr. Aliearn
X-Rays 30.00
These items were all recoverable by Mr. Lockhart, who owned the car individually.
An obvious transposition of verdicts can be, and should be, corrected by the trial judge on motion without granting a new trial.2
However, this case presents a different problem which we think requires either a new trial or a record substantiating the claim that the jury was not improperly influenced. On the last morning of the trial one juror, in his car on his way to the court house, was struck from behind in much the same type of accident as that which gave rise to this action. He suffered no injury. He told his fellow jurors about the experience. The trial judge’s inquiry into the effect of this incident was limited to questions directed at the individual juror, who stated that the occurrence did not influence the verdict. The unanswered question is whether other jurors were influenced improperly. If the absence of influence can be shown the verdict should be allowed to stand; if not, a new trial should be awarded. This decision is predicated upon the great similarity between the accidents and the disallowance of damages to Mrs. Lockhart. This coincidence suggests the need for a more extensive inquiry than was conducted.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lockhart v. Prudot, 288 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ly prohibited plaintiff’s counsel from attempting to inquire into all of the matters that were considered by the jurors in their deliberations. The order is affirmed. MANN, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . Lockhart v. Prudot, Fla.App. 2nd 1972, 271 So. 2d 157.…
-
Cipriani v. Jerico, 449 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…r Cipriani. The record discloses that the injury Cipriani complained of following an automobile accident was not objectively verifiable. Thus, a jury of reasonable persons would be justified in concluding that he was not injured. Lockhart v. Prudot, 271 So. 2d 157 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). Finding that the appellant has failed to [*995] demonstrate reversible error in any of the other points raised on this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1971)
- Boeck v. Diem, 245 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Brigida Tejon and Victor Castro v. Mary R. Broome and her husband, 261 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)