Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 19, 2015 by admin

Premises Liability – Errors warranting new trial – discovery violations – jury misconduct

40 Fla. L. Weekly D402a

Torts — Premises liability — Trip and fall — New trial — Trial court did
not abuse discretion by granting new trial after jury verdict for defendant
based upon finding that defendant had destroyed evidence, that defendant had
violated court orders, that defendant had engaged in material, willful discovery
violations to prejudice of plaintiffs, and that two jurors had engaged in
misconduct by failing to disclose litigation history that was relevant and
material to jury service; and based, further, upon finding that verdict was
against manifest weight of evidence

MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. MICHAEL
CATINELLA and EILEEN CATINELLA, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D13-1295.
Opinion filed February 11, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County;
J. Dale Durrance, Judge. Counsel: Lamar D. Oxford of Dean, Ringers, Morgan &
Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Douglas H. Stein and Stephanie Martinez of
Seipp, Flick & Hosley, LLP, Miami, for Appellees.

[Original
Opinion at 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2515a
]

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied. The prior opinion dated December
3, 2014, is withdrawn, and the attached corrected opinion is issued in its
place. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.
(KELLY, Judge.) Michael Catinella was unloading a truck at Meadowbrook Meat
Company when he suffered injuries from a trip and fall. Mr. Catinella and his
wife filed suit, alleging that Meadowbrook had knowledge of and failed to warn
Mr. Catinella of an unsafe condition at its facility, specifically a
malfunctioning dock leveler. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Meadowbrook, the Catinellas moved for a new trial. Meadowbrook appeals from the
order that granted the Catinellas’ motion.
“A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to override a jury
verdict on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence.” Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So. 2d 336, 339 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2004). Additionally, this court has further held that an order granting a
motion for new trial is subject to a heightened abuse of discretion standard:

We review a circuit court’s order granting a motion for a new trial
for abuse of discretion. Moreover, it takes a stronger showing of error in order
to reverse an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Thus
we begin with the presumption that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion, and we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent a clear
abuse of that discretion.

Moore v. Gillett, 96 So. 3d 933, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citations
omitted), review denied, 119 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 2013). More specifically,
this court has held that “[t]he standard of review we must apply to an order
granting a new trial is whether reasonable persons could differ as to the
propriety of the trial judge’s action. If they could, then the order is
reasonable and not an abuse of the judge’s discretion.” K-Mart Corp. v.
Collins
, 707 So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citation omitted).
In its lengthy and detailed order, the court set out the circumstances it
believed warranted a new trial. The court found that during the course of the
case Meadowbrook had destroyed evidence, requiring the court to give the jury an
adverse inference instruction; had materially violated a variety of court
orders; and had engaged in systematic material, willful discovery violations to
the prejudice of the Catinellas. The court also found that two jurors had
engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose litigation history that was
relevant and material to jury service. In concluding that a new trial was
warranted the court explained:

Based on the totality of circumstances outlined in this Order and
the Court’s own direct observation of the facts, parties, and witnesses, [the
court] finds a new trial is warranted. The Court finds the jury verdict in this
case is clearly contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court bases
this on the presumption instruction on spoliation and the scarcity of credible
evidence that the leveler in question was not broken. Thus, no reasonable jury
could have found that the leveler was in working order. The evidence showed the
Plaintiff tripped over something that was sticking up at the end of the dock
leveler. This is supported by the testimony of Sabrina Graham as well as the
fall shown in the video. Defendant was on notice of the defective nature of the
leveler and was specifically placed on notice when Quincy Hayward had the
Plaintiff perform the two-man operation of the leveler. Finally, the manifest
weight of the evidence showed Plaintiff’s [injuries were] caused by Defendant’s
negligence.

In this appeal, Meadowbrook urges us to find that the trial court abused its
discretion by concluding that the circumstances detailed in its order warranted
a new trial. Although Meadowbrook argues that the trial court’s observations are
unsupported by the record, after thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal,
including the transcript of the trial, we cannot agree that under these
circumstances the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed. (DAVIS, C.J., and SLEET, J., Concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982