Robbins v. Graham, 80-1352

• Decision Date: 16 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-1352,80-1352
• Citation: 404 So.2d 769
• Parties: Danny M. ROBBINS and Janice L. Robbins, Appellants, v. Jim GRAHAM, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 769

404 So.2d 769

Danny M. ROBBINS and Janice L. Robbins, Appellants, v. Jim GRAHAM, et al., Appellees.

No. 80-1352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 16, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1981.

Joseph A. Vassallo and Allan J. Taylor of Vassallo & Varner, P. A., Palm Springs, for appellants.

Daniel H. James of Hamilton, James, Merkle & Young, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

STONE, BARRY J., Associate Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal an order granting defendants' motion for new trial based upon the trial judge's determination that the verdicts were "inconsistent."

It is apparent on their face that each of the forms of the jury verdict signed by the foreman on behalf of the jury in fact were irregular. The jury had been furnished with six forms of verdict, some of which were intended to have been executed and some of which were intended not to have been executed depending upon the jury's verdict. The jury was given one form of verdict in favor of the defendant, as to each separate defendant, and one in favor of the plaintiffs, as to the claim against each separate defendant, with a space provided for the amount of compensatory and punitive damages against each defendant. It was anticipated that three forms would be returned signed, one in favor of either of the plaintiff or the defendant as to the plaintiffs' claim against each defendant, and that three forms would be returned unsigned. Instead, all of the proposed verdict forms were returned by the jury signed. However, on each of the signed verdict forms the jury did insert additional language that made those forms that should not have been signed perfectly consistent with the appropriately signed forms, thereby leaving no question as to the jurors' intent.

The jury returned the following forms:

"WE, the jury find for the defendant, James Graham, Inc. SO SAY WE ALL."

"WE, the jury, find for the plaintiffs and against the defendant, JAMES GRAHAM, INC., a Florida corporation and assess compensatory damages at $9,500.00, and punitive damages at $0.00. SO SAY WE ALL."

"WE, the jury, find for the plaintiffs and against the defendant, A. R. WALTHERS and assess compensatory damages at $0.00 and punitive damages at $885.00. SO SAY WE ALL."

"WE, the jury find for the Defendant, A. R. Walthers. SO SAY WE ALL."

"WE, the jury, find for the plaintiffs and against the defendant, JIM GRAHAM and assess compensatory damages at $0.00. SO SAY WE ALL."

"WE, the jury, find for the Defendant, Jim Graham. SO SAY WE ALL."

On the first four above quoted verdict forms the jury also made a notation of "guilty," and on the last two above quoted verdict forms the jury also made a notation of "not guilty."

With respect to the two defendants found to be liable, and against whom damages were assessed, the jury inserted the amount of damages found against each on the forms provided for that purpose, while on the form that was intended only to be used in the event the jury had found in favor of such defendants the jury inserted in ink, clearly, the word "guilty." As to the other defendant whom the jury obviously intended to find without liability, the jury inserted the words "not guilty" on both forms of verdict applicable to that defendant and inserted "$0.00" dollars on the form that the jury was to have used in the event that the jury had found in favor of the plaintiffs and against that defendant.

Although the forms of verdict, as returned, were in fact irregular, we find that the appellees waived these irregularities and that the appellees were not entitled to a new trial. The appellants are, accordingly, entitled to judgment in accordance with the verdicts rendered.

The intent of the jury is clear as to all issues. There is no doubt that they intended to find the defendant, James Graham, Inc. and A. R. Walthers liable for the amount of the damages set forth on the forms of verdict against each and to find the defendant, James Graham, individually, without liability to the plaintiffs.

Any possible doubt as to the otherwise clear intent of the jury was eliminated by the questioning that occurred by the court of the foreman in which the answers were unequivocal as to the intent of the jury. There is no doubt that the foreman correctly enunciated the intent of the jury inasmuch as the polling of the jury following the questioning of the foreman confirmed that each juror intended the result as stated by the foreman.

In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, 46 So.2d 481 (Fla.1950) the jury was considering the claims of four separate plaintiffs in four separate actions against the railroad and were furnished with two verdict forms, one for plaintiffs and one for the defendant. The jury returned the following form:

"We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs and assess their damages as follows:

                For A. E. Price    $0000
                For Olive Price    $1250.00
                For Margery Price  $ 300.00
                For Tommy Price    $ 150.00
                'So say we all.'
                

At 482.

Just as in this case, the intent of the jury in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, supra, was "perfectly clear and understandable."

The court concluded, in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, supra, at 483:

Although the form of the verdict was imperfect when the jury made it apply where there was a finding against one plaintiff and for the others, still we think their intent was plain, and this, after all, is the test. No objection was made at the time the verdict was presented, and we understand it did not occur to court or counsel that there was any irregularity until after the jury had dispersed. In such circumstances, exception to the form was waived. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Judge of Circuit Court, 102 Fla. 924, 136 So. 621.

Since the substance of the verdict was, in this case, clearly ascertainable and...