Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Pavone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Pavone

92 So. 3d 243, 2012 WL 2012069, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 2012

DocketNos. 3D10-2495, 3D10-2670, 3D10-3205

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 3d 243 (Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Pavone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Pavone, 92 So. 3d 243, 2012 WL 2012069, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

This case represents a classic instance of the proper application of the rule which invalidates verdicts which are tainted by juror misconduct during voir dire. The record conclusively demonstrates that a member of the jury which rendered a substantial plaintiffs verdict in this seaman’s¹ personal injury action flat out lied, both in writing in an answer to the jury questionnaire and in open court by his failure to respond to the court’s and counsels’ specific questions on the point, when he denied personal involvement in any other litigation. In fact, as was revealed shortly after the verdict, he was then the plaintiff in a personal injury action pending in the circuit court which was set for trial a short time thereafter. In these circumstances, we find no basis for the trial court’s failure to grant a new trial based on that juror’s misconduct. See Johnston v. State, 63 So.3d 730 (Fla.2011); De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla.1995); Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 65 So.3d 52 (Fla.2d DCA 2011); Murphy v. Hurst, 881 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Davis v. Cohen, 816 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Bernal v. Lipp, 580 So.2d 315 (Fla.3d DCA 1991). The appellee’s defensive contentions to the contrary are without merit. See Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla.2002); Pereda v. Parajon, 957 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Taylor v. Magana, 911 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).²

Accordingly, we reverse for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

This case represents a classic instance of the proper application of the rule which invalidates verdicts which are tainted by juror misconduct during voir dire. The record conclusively demonstrates that a member of the jury which rendered a substantial plaintiffs verdict in this seaman’s¹ personal injury action flat out lied, both in writing in an answer to the jury questionnaire and in open court by his failure to respond to the court’s and counsels’ specific questions on the point, when he denied personal involvement in any other litigation. In fact, as was revealed shortly after the verdict, he was then the plaintiff in a personal injury action pending in the circuit court which was set for trial a short time thereafter. In these circumstances, we find no basis for the trial court’s failure to grant a new trial based on that juror’s misconduct. See Johnston v. State, 63 So.3d 730 (Fla.2011); De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla.1995); Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 65 So.3d 52 (Fla.2d DCA 2011); Murphy v. Hurst, 881 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Davis v. Cohen, 816 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Bernal v. Lipp, 580 So.2d 315 (Fla.3d DCA 1991). The appellee’s defensive contentions to the contrary are without merit. See Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla.2002); Pereda v. Parajon, 957 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Taylor v. Magana, 911 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).²

Accordingly, we reverse for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 3d 243, 2012 WL 2012069, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-v-pavone-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack