HomeMy WebLinkAbout2610 trial court asked if anyone wished to poll the jury and X11
counsel declined. Then the jury was discharged. As soon as
. {
the jury was gone counsel for the appellee requested that the
court delay entry of a final judgment because the jury's award
of severance damages was inadequate and noted the same error
later relied on by the trial court in granting the judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.
We believe this situation is similar to one involved
in Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973),
wherein we held that the failure to object to inconsistent
verdicts before the discharge of the jury precluded subsequent
review of the error. An examination of Judge Reed's opinion
reflects the reasoning behind the ruling:
As a starting point in our discussion, we would
concede that the two verdicts were inconsistent
with one another. Obviously the verdict for the
plaintiff against Lindquist and Smith necessarily
implies that Lindquist was negligent in driving
his vehicle into the plaintiff's vehicle. The
verdict in favor of Lindquist, on the other hand,
necessarily finds that Lindquist was not negligent
in striking the plaintiff's vehicle--which collision
was the only collision in which Lindquist was ,
involved and thus the only source of his injury.
However, when these verdicts were read, neither -
Lindquist nor Smith raised an objection to their
E inconsistency. This problem was not called to
the court's attention until the motions for new
j trials were filed.
4
Certainly this-court does not approve the creation
of technical barriers to appellate review. At the
same time, however, there would be very little
fairness in reversing the plaintiff's judgment
because of an inconsistency in the verdicts which {
could have been corrected in virtually no time at
all by a resubmission of the cause to the jury
had either of the appellants raised the matter
before the jury was discharged. See Stevens
Markets Inc. v. Markantonatos, Fla. 1966, 189 So.
2d 624; cf. Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla. 1953, 66 So.
2d 684 and Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational
~ Center Inc., Fla. App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 132, 134.
- We are reinforced in this conclusion by the fact
'T that the verdict for the plaintiff and against
the defendants was amply supported by competent
substantial evidence, and it is only the verdict
in favor of the defendant Lindquist which raises
the problem of an apparent inconsistency. Hence
we hold that any error of the trial court related
to the receipt of the inconsistent verdicts has
not been preserved for purposes of this appeal,
because of the. appellants' failure to object thereto
before the jury was discharged. (Id. at 45)
3. ~
BeoK ~3U4 ~aEE 2607
_ 3.. _ e~
~