Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 97-2159
| Decision Date | 09 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2159,97-2159 |
| Citation | 718 So.2d 881 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2072 Robert EDWARDS, Appellant, v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Poses & Halpern, P.A.; Cooper & Wolfe, P.A., Maureen E. Lefebvre and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.
Decker & Hallman, W. Winston Briggs and Richard P. Decker, Atlanta, GA, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GREEN, JJ.
Robert Edwards ("Edwards") appeals from the trial court's order granting Orkin Exterminating Company's (Orkin) post-trial motion for directed verdict. For the following reasons we reverse.
McArthur Dairy ("McArthur") had its warehouse treated at least once a month with pesticides by Orkin. In addition to Orkin's treatment, McArthur conducted its own daily pesticide spraying of the same warehouse at the direction of McArthur's plant manager. Orkin was aware of the additional spraying.
In the summer of 1989, Edwards was a temporary employee of McArthur and was exposed to the high level of pesticides and pesticide residue at the warehouse. He developed an allergic reaction that was initially merely topical, but later became internalized because of its severity. He suffered from severe skin itching and pain; became very depressed; and was unable to sleep. His physical condition deteriorated and he attempted suicide. Edwards was unable to work between 1989 and 1996 due to his condition.
Edwards sued Orkin, McArthur, and the pesticide manufacturer for negligence, alleging that Orkin had failed to warn McArthur regarding the dangers of the additional spraying of the pesticides which caused Edwards' injuries. 1 The jury found that Orkin was negligent and that Orkin's negligence had caused Edwards' damages. The jury assessed 50% negligence against Orkin and 50% negligence against McArthur. It awarded Edwards $40,000 in past lost earnings, $40,000 in past hospital and medical expense, $5,000 in past non-economic damages, and no future damages.
The trial court erred in granting Orkin's post-trial motion for directed verdict. The record reflects that there was competent evidence presented at trial to support the jury verdict in favor of Edwards. See Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1977)( that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict); see also Espino v. Anez, 665 So.2d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The record supports the jury's weighing of evidence and credibility determinations. Thus, despite the judge's disagreement with the jury's verdict, "the trial judge does not sit as a seventh juror with veto power." Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla.1970); see also Perry v. Red Wing Shoe Co., 597 So.2d 821, 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
The power to direct a verdict should be cautiously exercised, and a motion for a directed verdict should never be granted unless the evidence is such that under no view which the jury might lawfully take of the evidence favorable to the adverse party could a verdict for the latter party be sustained.
Burch v. Strange, 126 So.2d 898, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961).
Edwards is entitled to a new trial on damages because the trial court admitted evidence that Edwards failed to pay child support and it allowed Orkin to insinuate that Edwards, when he was in his early 20's, had a history of alcohol and drug use. The only purpose of this evidence was to prejudice the jury against Edwards, as it had no probative value. See Canales v. Compania De Vapores Realma, S.A., 564 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Browning v. Lewis, 582 So.2d 101, 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
These issues arose in relation to Edwards' damages. Edwards claimed that his suicide attempt resulted from his serious skin injuries which caused depression, lack of sleep, and decreased energy. Orkin claimed that Edwards was not depressed because of his injuries, but because he had not seen his daughter due to his failure to pay child support. Though Edwards' failure to see his daughter may have been relevant, the reason why--Edwards' failure to pay child support--was not relevant evidence as it did not tend to prove depression and was a highly prejudicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
...458 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Sterling Casino Lines, L.P. v. Plowman-Render, 902 So.2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 718 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We can only attribute the defense lawyer's inappropriate questioning of the plaintiff in this respect to wha......
-
Scott v. TPI Restaurants, Inc.
...jury could render a verdict for that party. Blake v. Hi-Lu Corp., 781 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 718 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Burch v. Strange, 126 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)); Houghton v. Bond, 680 So.2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); s......
-
Hernandez v. Mishali
...3d DCA 2016) ("[W]e must sustain a jury verdict if it is supported by competent substantial evidence."); Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 718 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (same). As our Supreme Court advised when reviewing a ruling on a motion for new trial:A jury's verdict should ......
-
Atkin v. Tittle & Tittle, 97-3410.
...take of the evidence favorable to the adverse party could a verdict for the latter party be sustained. Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 718 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(quoting Burch v. Strange, 126 So.2d 898, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)); Perry v. Red Wing Shoe Co., 597 So.2d 821......
-
Relevance and materiality
...child support and had been an alcohol and drug abuser was prejudicial and mandated reversal. Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. , 718 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Robinson v. Robinson Where shares of stock were deemed to be non-marital, value was irrelevant for purposes of equitable ......