From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skopit v. Neisen

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 11, 1993
616 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

No. 92-1825.

March 16, 1993. Rehearing Denied May 11, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert M. Deehl, J.

Walton Lantaff Schroeder Carson, and Robert L. Teitler, Miami, for appellant.

Smith Gellman, Miami, Don Russo, and Elizabeth Koebel Russo, Coconut Grove, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and GERSTEN, JJ.


We reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial. Since the jury never reached the issue of apportioning damages, any error on the verdict form was harmless. The asserted juror misconduct, if true, was not material to this case, and, thus did not warrant a new trial. See Blaylock v. State, 537 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 547 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 1989). Finally, because the trial court should not impanel itself as a "seventh juror with veto power", McNair v. Davis, 518 So.2d 416, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), we reverse the ruling that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Skopit v. Neisen

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 11, 1993
616 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

Skopit v. Neisen

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY SKOPIT, D.O., APPELLANT, v. PATRICIA NEISEN AND SIDNEY NEISEN, HER…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 11, 1993

Citations

616 So. 2d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Zequeira v. De La Rosa

The motion for new trial — upon which, with its supporting affidavits, the plaintiff solely relied below —…

Mervar v. Quick Print of Orlando

I suggest it is for juries to decide the degree of negligence, based upon the facts and it is not for the…