Teran v. General Electric Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Teran v. General Electric Co.

568 So. 2d 1006, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8324, 1990 WL 164877

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 1990

DocketNo. 90-26

StatusPublished

This text of 568 So. 2d 1006 (Teran v. General Electric Co.) 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

Teran v. General Electric Co., 568 So. 2d 1006, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8324, 1990 WL 164877 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole point on appeal is that a new trial should have been granted where jurors may have overheard comments made by the bailiff, during a recess, regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s case. The transcript of the juror interviews, in which each juror testified that he had not received, either directly or indirectly, any information from the bailiff as to matters asserted by the plaintiff, establishes that the impartiality of the jury was not compromised by remarks made outside the record. For that reason, no error is shown in the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial. See Premiere Properties Inc., v. Caron, 546 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (a new trial appropriate only where court determines jury was influenced by considerations outside record or verdict is against manifest weight of evidence); Smith v. Vining, 407 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (same).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole point on appeal is that a new trial should have been granted where jurors may have overheard comments made by the bailiff, during a recess, regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s case. The transcript of the juror interviews, in which each juror testified that he had not received, either directly or indirectly, any information from the bailiff as to matters asserted by the plaintiff, establishes that the impartiality of the jury was not compromised by remarks made outside the record. For that reason, no error is shown in the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial. See Premiere Properties Inc., v. Caron, 546 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (a new trial appropriate only where court determines jury was influenced by considerations outside record or verdict is against manifest weight of evidence); Smith v. Vining, 407 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (same).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 1006, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8324, 1990 WL 164877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teran-v-general-electric-co-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack