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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 12, 2014 by admin

Second DCA Affirms New Trial for Discovery violations, Juror Misconduct, etc

39 Fla. L. Weekly D2515a


Torts — Premises liability — Trip and fall — New trial — Trial court did
not abuse discretion by granting new trial after jury verdict for defendant upon
finding that defendant had destroyed evidence, that defendant had violated court
orders, that defendant had made willful discovery violation, and that two jurors
had engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose litigation history
MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. MICHAEL
CATINELLA and EILEEN CATINELLA, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D13-1295.
Opinion filed December 3, 2014. 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.
(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 on the grounds that
Meadowbrook had destroyed evidence and committed numerous discovery violations
and that two jurors had engaged in misconduct. Meadowbrook appeals from the
order that granted the Catinellas a new trial.
“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. Meadowbrook does not argue 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

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982