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

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

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

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. 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