DANIEL SCHUMER AND COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
LOUIS BECKER AND MAY BECKER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a comparative negligence case, the trial court improperly questioned a jury after it returned a verdict apportioning damages 80% to the plaintiff-pedestrian and 20% to the defendant-driver. The appellate court reversed and reinstated the original jury verdict, holding that the trial court exceeded its authority by extensively interrogating the jury about the effect of its award, which confused the jury and suggested its decision was incorrect.
The trial court was not authorized to inquire further into the jury's verdict after it was returned with a signed special interrogatory. The court's repeated questioning exceeded polling the jury and served to suggest the verdict was incorrect, ultimately confusing the jury. The original verdict returned before the court's explanations must be reinstated.
[1] A trial court may not inquire further into a jury's verdict once it has appropriately apportioned damages on the basis of fault.
[2] Repeated questioning of a jury by a trial court concerning the effect of its award may suggest to the jury that its decision is incorrect.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes that the jury's apportionment was proper and that the trial court's subsequent questioning was unauthorized.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis Becker, a pedestrian, was injured by an automobile driven by Daniel Schumer and insured by Colonial Penn Insurance Company. The jury returned a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Apportionment Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We reverse the final judgment in the amount of $8,000 entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, Louis Becker, and remand this cause with directions to the trial court to enter a final judgment for Louis Becker in the amount of $1,600 in accordance with the verdict returned by the jury prior to extensive questioning by the trial judge.
In its special verdict interrogatory, the jury assessed total damages incurred by appellee Becker at $8,000 and determined that Becker was 80% liable when, as a pedestrian, he was injured by an automobile driven by appellant, Daniel Schumer, and insured by appellant, Colonial Penn Insurance Company. The jury assessed the driver’s fault at 20%. After questioning the jury, the court determined that $8,000 represented net rather than total damages.
The verdict appropriately apportioned damages on the basis of fault. Lawrence v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla.1977); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). The trial court was, therefore, not authorized to inquire further, and its repeated questioning of the jury concerning the effect of its award, however well-intentioned, served only to suggest to the jury that its decision was incorrect. The court went beyond polling the jury. The additional questioning disclosed that the jury, which returned with a signed special jury interrogatory three times, became totally confused by the court’s explanations concerning reductions and net amounts of damages. Adkins v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 351 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The verdict returned prior to the court’s explanations of the consequences of apportionment expressed the jury’s decision and must be reinstated.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cent. Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Greenberg, 418 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ial judge’s apparent rejection of its first set of conclusions very likely (and unjustifiably) led the jury to the belief that there was something incorrect about those results and thus to their subsequent verdict to the contrary. Schumer v. Becker, 389 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). . Because the first verdict was not in fact published and, since it was incomplete, could not in any event have been deemed final or beyond its control, see Glecer v. Fletcher, 299 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), we recognize tha…
-
Nettie Springer v. Arthur OF Cedarhurst, Inc., 424 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…d more than it was required to do. There was no confusion from the face of the verdict or the ensuing colloquy; it began when the trial judge rejected the first verdict, which confusion was obviously a result of the rejection. See Schumer v. Becker, 389 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (where jury’s decision was clearly stated in the verdict, an inquiry which went beyond polling the jury suggested that the decision was incorrect and caused confusion, therefore, original verdict would be reinstated). Reversed an…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Lawrence v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 346 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1977)
- Adkins v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 351 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)