AGRO DISTRIBUTION, LLC v. Rowe, 4D03-580.

• Decision Date: 30 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. 4D03-580.,4D03-580.
• Citation: 876 So.2d 709
• Parties: AGRO DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and Art B. Zola, Appellants, v. Lorraine ROWE, as guardian of Jacqueline Rowe, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

876 So.2d 709

AGRO DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and Art B. Zola, Appellants, v. Lorraine ROWE, as guardian of Jacqueline Rowe, Appellee.

No. 4D03-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 2004.

Henry G. Gyden, Sylvia H. Walbolt and Michael K. Winston of Carlton Fields, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Philip M. Burlington of Philip M. Burlington, P.A. and Steven W. Halvorson of Steven W. Halvorson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

FARMER, C.J.

In this personal injury case, the trial court overruled the defendant's attempted peremptory strike of a juror. Plaintiff had objected to the attempted strike, arguing that the juror was the only member of her race who would be serving on the jury. During voir dire examination, the juror related that she was the principal of a public school for mentally retarded students. She was "very much bonded to all of the students." One of her students, a second-grader, died in a motor vehicle accident. The child's grandmother was her close friend and co-worker, and she sympathized with her over the course of three to four years of litigation. It had been only six months since she stopped thinking about this matter on a daily basis. Additionally, her former husband was an attorney who did some personal injury work for injured parties, and she was familiar with his cases. She unequivocally stated, however, that she could "most definitely" remain impartial and unbiased despite these experiences.

When the court asked defense counsel to justify his peremptory strike, counsel stated:

"First of all, that she works as a principal in a school that does have mentally retarded children. So she potentially is going to identify with — with people with those types of injuries. Number two, she has a situation where she had a friend that had a child who was injured or killed on I-95 in a trucking accident, which she would identify with. And her husband — also her ex-husband was a personal injury attorney. So I think all those reasons are sufficient to — allow us to challenge her for that."

The trial court denied the challenge, citing the juror's statement that she could be impartial and saying that "other than color there isn't any other reason to have her excused." Defense counsel replied that he believed the asserted grounds "are big reasons to be concerned about her as a juror." The judge declined to alter his ruling, saying he had "no notes on her" and that he was convinced that "she could be perfectly fair." We reverse. The outcome here is...