NETTIE SPRINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR OF CEDARHURST, INC., AND KEN'S WAXING SERVICE, 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.
An 81-year-old plaintiff suffered a broken hip from a slip-and-fall accident at defendant's place of business. The jury found both parties negligent (plaintiff 90%, defendant 10%) and awarded $225,000 in total damages, then handwrote a calculation reducing damages to $22,500 consistent with comparative fault. The trial court rejected the original verdict and sent the jury back, resulting in a $22,500 judgment; the appellate court reversed, finding the original verdict clear and unambiguous.
The appellate court held that the jury's first verdict was clear, consistent, and unambiguous. The handwritten addendum correctly calculated damages in accordance with the jury's findings and the court's instructions, and it was improper for the trial court to reject this verdict and send the jury back for reconsideration.
[1] A jury's handwritten calculation on a special verdict form, consistent with the jury's findings of fault and total damages, does not render the verdict inconsistent or am…
[2] A trial court errs by rejecting a jury's initial verdict when the handwritten addendum merely clarifies a calculation based on the jury's explicit findings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We agree with appellant that the jury's first verdict was clear and consistent. The handwritten addendum merely made a correct calculation, precisely what the trial judge would have done subsequently.”
Establishes that the jury's handwritten notation was a proper clarification, not an inconsistency requiring rejection of the verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNettie Springer, age 81, slipped and fell while a patron at Arthur of Cedarhurst, Inc. She suffered a broken hip requiring surgery and extended hospit…
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 Special Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
[*176] FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant, who was eighty-one years old at the time of this accident, slipped and fell while a patron in appellee’s place of business; she suffered a broken hip which required surgery and extended hospitalization. After trial, a jury returned its verdict on a printed form which read, essentially:
1. Was there negligence on the part of the Defendant? Yes. 2. Was there negligence on the part of the Plaintiff? Yes. 3. What percentage of negligence should be charged to the Plaintiff and to the Defendant? Plaintiff 90%. Defendant 10%. TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL PARTIES MUST BE 100% 4. What is the total amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff and caused by the accident? Total damages of Plaintiff $225.000 In determining the total amount of damages, do not make any reduction because of the negligence, if any, of Plaintiff. If you have found Plaintiff negligent in any degree, the Court in entering Judgment will reduce the total amount of damages (100%) by an appropriate amount. SO SAY WE ALL this 1st DAY OF December, 1981. /s/ John J. Malloy FOREMAN OR FOREWOMAN After completing the printed portion of the special verdict form, the jury, in disregard of the last instruction on the form, calculated and wrote in the amount of damages due to plaintiff consistent with the total amount of damages and the percentage of fault attributable to both parties:
“According to our interpretation of question number four, we, the jury, decide to award the Plaintiff $22,500.00, notwithstanding the percentages in question number three.” The jury was then polled and they each acknowledged the verdict as theirs. The court inquired whether there were any motions before discharge of the jury, to which, counsel for the appellee asked that the jury be again polled as to the total amount of damages sustained. Each of the jurors again indicated that the total amount of damages was $225,000. Ruling that the written portion of the verdict was inconsistent with the instructions, the court then gave the jury a second verdict form and sent them back into the jury room. After a short period the jurors returned with the new verdict form which found total damages of $22,500, upon which Final Judgment was entered, and from which this appeal is brought.
We agree with appellant that the jury’s first verdict was clear and consistent. The handwritten addendum merely made a correct calculation, precisely what the trial judge would have done subsequently. It is no basis for discarding an otherwise consistent and unambiguous verdict that the jury, in order to make clear its intentions, did 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 and remanded with instruction to enter judgment based on the original verdict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K-Mart Corp. v. Collins, 707 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ect in trial court); Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“A party may not complain of a verdict form to which he does not object.”), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1979). We note that in Springer v. Arthur of Cedarhurst, Inc., 424 So. 2d 175, 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the court stated that “[tjhere was no confusion from the face” of a nearly identical verdict form. The trial judge also abused his discretion in ruling that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. “For…
-
LEE Leigh Assocs. v. Gainsford, 473 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…other hand, the second question merely seeks clarification of an objective fact and, therefore, it is wholly permissible. Indeed, due process demands that a jury’s verdict be clear and unambiguous. See, e.g., Springer v. Arthur of Cedarhurst, Inc., 424 So. 2d 175-(Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The cases cited by the majority as supporting an affirmance address the prohibited nature of the first question posed above. I do not disagree with the rule of law established by those cases. My disagreement, rather, stems from…
Authorities Cited
- Schumer v. Becker, 389 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)