Skopit v. Neisen
This text of 616 So. 2d 505 (Skopit v. Neisen) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
616 So. 2d 505, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3425, 1993 WL 72271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skopit-v-neisen-fladistctapp-1993.