Rodriguez v. Lagomasino, 3D06-1956.
| Decision Date | 23 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D06-1956.,3D06-1956. |
| Citation | 972 So.2d 1050 |
| Parties | Adolfo RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. Roberto J. LAGOMASINO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
v.
Roberto J. LAGOMASINO, Appellee.
Robbins & Reynolds and Robert A. Robbins, Miami, for appellant.
Bernstein, Chackman & Liss and Neil Rose, Hollywood, for appellee.
Before COPE and GREEN, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Adolfo Rodriguez appeals a judgment entered on, a defense verdict in an automobile accident case. The plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred by failing to strike two jurors for cause. We agree that both jurors should have been stricken for cause and reverse for a new trial.
The plaintiff was involved in two auto accidents. The first was a minor car accident on May 1, 1999. The plaintiff saw a doctor for treatment two days later for complaints of neck and back pain. After leaving that appointment, the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant. As a result of this second accident, the plaintiff received treatment from paramedics
and was transported to Hialeah Hospital, where he was treated in the emergency room, underwent a series of x-rays, and was given a CT scan. He received further treatment subsequently. The plaintiff filed his lawsuit against the defendant for injuries sustained in this second accident.
During voir dire, prospective juror Mr. Gutierrez advised that his wife had been involved in an accident where she rear-ended a vehicle and although her car had no damage and "she just touched" the other vehicle, the other driver filed a claim against them. Defense counsel asked:
[Defense counsel]: Is that experience going to affect you in any way in this kind of case or not?
Mr. Gutierrez: In that accident I feel a little bad because the insurance that we have just sent me a letter and let me know that they're going to raise my insurance up to the double, I think.
[Defense counsel]: Oh, is that right?
Mr. Gutierrez: And I called in and I tell them that that claim is fraud because nothing happened at all.
[Defense counsel]: Right.
Mr. Gutierrez: We know that, but we can't do anything about it.
[Defense counsel]: Okay.
Mr. Gutierrez: That's what the answer they give me. Okay. I canceled my insurance.
[Defense counsel]: Well, you're going to hear testimony about how an accident occurred in here and then what they're claiming and what the injuries that they're claiming are. Would you be able to put aside what happened in your wife's situation and listen to the testimony here in this case, can you do this?
Mr. Gutierrez: I still feel a little bad about that car insurance company, but I don't know. The problem is with the insurance company.
[Defense counsel]: I understand that your problem is with the insurance company.
Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah. What happened with my —
[Defense counsel]: You're not going to hear anything in this case about insurance companies. So I just want to know when we start, are you going to be—before we even start, are you going to be favoring the Plaintiff, or are you going to be favoring the Defendant, or are you going to be right down the middle before we even start?
Mr. Gutierrez: I'm going to be in the middle.
Another juror, Mr. Hillberry, in discussing caps on damages expressed the following during voir dire:
[Plaintiffs counsel]: Let me just ask another question of the panel.... How many people here believe in caps, that there should be caps on damages?
Mr. Hillberry: (Indicating)
[Plaintiff's counsel]: And Mr. Hillberry, tell what your feelings are in that regard?
Mr. Hillberry: Well, I believe that there should be caps on damages because there has been—we live in a litigious society where there have been a lot of frivolous lawsuits that cost millions of dollars to corporations and individuals, and basically that would be attributed to a rise in our cost of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivas v. Sandoval
...to accept [juror fifteen], an objectionable juror, because [she] had exhausted [her] peremptory challenges." Rodriguez v. Lagomasino, 972 So. 2d 1050, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). "This court has consistently held that ‘it is error for a court to force a party to exhaust his peremptory challeng......
-
Back to the future: how Rodriguez v. Lagomasino got it right in 2008 and why modern voir dire should be guided by 1929's Johnson v. Reynolds.
...irreconcilable with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Johnson v. Reynolds. In a very recent case, Rodriguez v. Lagomasino, 972 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a defense verdict because the trial judge declined to strike two jurors for c......