MOURER & MOURER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE TERRY AND KITTY TERRY, 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.
Mourer & Mourer, Inc. appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of the contractor. The appellate court reverses, finding no evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the jury failed to follow instructions on comparative negligence and duty to mitigate damages.
The appellate court reversed the new trial order, holding that there was no evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the jury failed to follow its instructions. The court presumed the jury followed the instructions on comparative negligence and duty to mitigate, and found ample evidence supporting the jury's verdict of no compensable damages.
[1] A jury's verdict is presumed to be in accordance with the trial court's instructions absent evidence to the contrary.
[2] A trial court may not grant a new trial based on a jury's alleged failure to follow instructions when there is ample evidence to support the jury's verdict.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Absent evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that jurors followed the trial judge's instructions.”
Establishes the legal standard that jurors are presumed to follow instructions unless evidence proves otherwise.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Terrys hired Mourer as a general contractor to build a single-family residence and detached studio. Before construction was completed, the Terrys …
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 Mitigation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge.
Mourer & Mourer, Inc., challenges the trial court order granting George and Kitty Terry’s motion to set aside the verdict and granting a new trial. We reverse.
The Terrys hired general contractor Mourer to build a single-family residence and detached studio on property they owned in Sebring. Before construction was completed, the Terrys began storing personal belongings in the studio. A flood occurred while plumbing fixtures were being tested which resulted in damage to some of the Terrys’ personal belongings. The Terrys sued Mourer for damages on a negligence theory. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the Ter-rys as to Mourer’s liability for causing the flood, but reserved all of Mourer’s affirmative defenses.
The case was submitted to the jury with an instruction that Mourer was negligent and such negligence was the.legal cause of the Terrys’ damage. The jury was also instructed on the comparative negligence, if any, of the Terrys and their duty to mitigate damages. The issues of comparative negligence and the amount of any damages resulting from the parties’ respective negligence were hotly contested. The jury heard evidence and argument purporting to show the Terrys’ failure to mitigate, assumption of risk, comparative negligence, and failure to prove compensable damages. The Terrys declined to seek nominal damages.
The jury found that the Terrys suffered no compensable damages attributable to Mourer’s negligence. The trial judge granted the motion for new trial on the sole ground that the jury failed to follow its instructions. There is no evidence that supports the trial judge’s conclusion. The jury was instructed on comparative negligence and the duty to mitigate. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that jurors followed the trial judge’s instructions. Sutton v. State, 718 So. 2d 215, 216 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). There is ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
Reversed and remanded. On remand, the jury’s verdict shall be reinstated and judgment entered for Mourer. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Niurka Garcia As Mother & Legal Representative O (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)
Authorities Cited
- Advanced Emp. Concepts/AIG Claim Servs., Inc. v. Resmondo, 718 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)