Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 17 January 2001
• Docket Number: No. 4D99-3767.,4D99-3767.
• Citation: 781 So.2d 416
• Parties: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Beverly THORNTON and Murray James Thomas, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

781 So.2d 416

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Beverly THORNTON and Murray James Thomas, Appellees.

No. 4D99-3767.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 17, 2001.

Rosemary B. Wilder and Richard A. Sherman of Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Jack A. Nieland of Law Offices of Lawrence J. Signori, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., Lawrence U.L. Chandler of Lawrence U.L. Chandler, P.A., West Palm Beach, and for Appellee-Beverly Thornton.

FINE, EDWARD H., Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a verdict in favor of Mrs. Thornton arising out of a claim of personal injury caused by a motor vehicle crash. Appellant Allstate was joined as a defendant as the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier. Mrs. Thornton presented evidence that as the result of this crash she suffered a permanent injury consisting of two herniated disks in her spinal column that would need care for the rest of her life and perhaps surgery. She had a mortality table life expectancy of 35.1 years. The approximate cost of surgery was $50,000.00. The defense presented evidence disputing that her injury arose from the accident, that she had the need for any future surgery, or that she suffered any sort of permanent injury as the result of this accident.

The jury returned a verdict totaling $213,750.00. The jury found the defendant driver was 100% negligent and awarded: $850.00 for past lost wages, $75,000.00 for past intangible damages, $10,500.00 for past medical expenses, $18,000.00 for future lost wages, $30,000.00 for future intangible damages, and $80,000.00 for future medical expenses.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court's denial of its peremptory challenge against the first juror on the venire panel, who happened to be the only African American juror on the panel. The juror in question was Mr. Waldon. In 1968 Mr. Waldon had been involved in an auto accident, suffered a broken hip and pelvis and injury to his neck. As a result, thirty-one years later he was still using a cane and continued to occasionally suffer discomfort from his injuries.

The defense stated its reasons for peremptorily challenging Mr. Waldon as his prior injuries from his accident, his present day residual problems, and the fact that his injuries affected his neck, lower back, and portions of his legs. This was a trial of claims of traumatic neck and back injuries with resulting pain including leg pain.

Appellee's attorney objected to this challenge stating:

I'm left with a dilemma. She's entitled to a Jury of her peers. We've had sixteen jurors. One of them, out of sixteen, is black. My client is black, and all of them—not all of them, but most of them raised their hand to various injuries, and they've stricken the only one on the panel who is black.

I think that's constitutionally infirm, yet they've shown—they've alleged, and I think it has to be said that what they've alleged is true, there are some infirmities with him as a juror, like there are with the others, and I think they're within their rights to exercise a peremptory strike on him, unless I don't know the law. I don't know the law, but—

. . . .

The court denied the peremptory challenge stating:

Well, he was specifically asked if he could be fair, and he was one you asked if he could be fair, even after noting the neck and back injuries, and he said, just as the others did, that he could be, so I am going to overrule you on that one.

MR. NIELAND (defense counsel): You're finding that my reason is not race neutral?

THE COURT: Yes. He specifically said he could be fair. That was after you asked him, and after he noted the injuries.

Discussion:

Voir dire proceedings are extraordinarily rich in diversity and no rigid set of rules will work in every case. Accordingly, reviewing courts should keep in mind two principles when enforcing the above guidelines. First, peremptories are presumed to be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner. Second, the trial court's decision turns primarily on an assessment of credibility and will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The right to an impartial jury guaranteed by article I, section 16, is best safeguarded not by an arcane maze of reversible error traps, but by reason and common sense.

Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 764, 765 (Fla.1996)(footnotes omitted).

Once the objection which the judge understood to be an allegation of racial discrimination was made (step 1), the burden shifted to appellant who was the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). See Harrison v. Emanuel, 694 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

The defense struck almost everyone else that had a history of severe injury or of a prior auto accident, unless stricken by the plaintiff....