National Indem. Co. v. Andrews
| Decision Date | 27 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-614,77-614 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 454 |
| Parties | NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Paul Van Dosen, Walter Styrzo, and Albert Balcombe, d/b/a Atlas Ambulance Service, Appellants, v. Sue L. ANDREWS et vir., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen F. Myers of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellants.
Lee S. Damsker of Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellees.
In this interlocutory appeal defendants/appellants, National Indemnity Co., Paul Van Dosen, Walter Styrzo, and Albert Balcombe, d/b/a Atlas Ambulance Service, attack the order of the trial court granting a motion to interview jurors filed by plaintiffs/appellees, Sue L. and John W. Andrews, as permitted by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.431(g). 1
We are of course well aware that Rule 1.431(g) provides that the trial court may permit members of the jury to be questioned under certain circumstances to determine whether grounds to challenge their verdict exist. A jury verdict will not be disturbed, however, in the absence of a showing that it "does not square with right and justice and there is reasonable ground to conclude that the jury acted through sympathy, passion, prejudice, mistake, or other unlawful cause . . . ." Florida Publishing Co. v. Copeland, 89 So.2d 18, 20 (Fla.1956).
The motion filed by appellees alleged as grounds for the interview that:
1. It appears as a matter of fact that the jury was guided by either passion, prejudice, or other matters outside of the record of this cause, and that they did not follow the instructions on the law as given and expressed by the Court; or in the alternative,
2. That the jury was confused by the instructions of the Court and by the argument by the counsel for the Defendants in that they did not follow the instructions of the Court concerning the greater weight of the evidence.
3. That the jury was influenced by matters outside of the record in this cause and allowed such influence to taint the verdict rendered.
4. That the jury persistently did not follow the instruction of the Court as to not discussing the case among themselves or with others.
It appears from the record that these conclusory allegations were bottomed upon pure speculation and surmise of appellees' attorney, unsupported or uncorroborated either by sworn affidavit or statements of even one of the jurors or a third party who was aware of an impropriety, wrongdoing, or violation of the oath of a juror affecting the jury verdict. At the hearing on the motion the attorney offered no further support for the motion by stating that: "We believe that perhaps something the jurors might have to say might be material on the question of whether or not we ought to have a new trial" (emphasis added).
There is no support in the record before us that the jury was tampered with, nor that appellees or their attorney had any knowledge of any misconduct or irregularity on the part of any juror in the trial of the case which would require reversal of the verdict. We submit that the case was fairly and impartially tried. The rights of the parties were not infringed upon or prejudiced in any manner. After the verdict of the jury was published the court inquired whether either counsel cared to have the jury polled. At the suggestion of trial counsel for plaintiffs each juror was polled and each announced that the verdict reached was his or hers. In a recent decision of this court, speaking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maler By and Through Maler v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 89-756
...the subjective decision-making process of the jury is not permissible."), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 779 (Fla.1981); National Indem. Co. v. Andrews, 354 So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA) ("The Supreme Court of the United States in considering the advisability of permitting a party to inquire into a ......
-
Schofield v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
...where grounds are demonstrated which would subject the jury's verdict to challenge prior to the interview. National Indemnity Co. v. Andrews, 354 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1978). The rule, however, was not intended to authorize hunting expeditions. Id. at 45......
-
Pesci v. Maistrellis, 96-00534
...as we have previously noted, "was not intended to authorize broad hunting expeditions or fishing excursions." National Indem. Co. v. Andrews, 354 So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1210 Furthermore, we do not perceive that the issue of standing acts as an impediment to pr......
-
State, Dept. of Transp. v. Rejrat, 88-3509
...to invoke that discretion, however, a party must establish adequate grounds for a legal challenge to the verdict. Nat'l Indemnity Co. v. Andrews, 354 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1978). Trial courts should recognize Post-trial juror interviews should be rarely ......