03 March

Sticky

Take Time Crafting Your Verdict Form

Take time to properly craft YOUR special interrogatory verdict form. This is the verdict form that goes back with the jury to answer in rendering its verdict. The questions, instructions, and the order of the questions in the verdict form need to flow and make sense. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, a jury rendered a verdict on a special interrogatory verdict form. The special interrogatory verdict form was, perhaps, not a model of perfection in asking the jury questions to answer. In answering the verdict form, the jury answered the 5th question “yes” that the insurer established that the damage...

03 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for a Remittitur to Reduce Jury’s Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

When a damages verdict comes in high for a plaintiff, it is not uncommon for a defendant to move for a remittitur for the trial judge to reduce the amount of damages arguing that the verdict is unreasonably excessive. A motion for remittitur is a motion to reduce the jury's verdict award. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fernalld v. ABB, Inc., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D542a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) explained: When considering a motion for remittitur, the court must determine whether the amount of a damages award “is excessive . . . in light of the facts and circumstances which...

06 October

0 Comments

Sticky

The Simple, All-or-Nothing Verdict Form

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Attention should be given to the verdict form you want the jury to fill out after listening to and seeing the evidence presented in the case. This verdict form dictates how the jury decides the facts in your case in the context of the theme of your case and the jury instructions. Needless to say, the verdict form is very, very important! There are times when a party may want a simple, all-or-nothing verdict form. A party may like this (such as the plaintiff) versus a special interrogatory form that contains numerous potentially confusing questions the jury is asked to answer. For...

21 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Motion for Directed Verdict (or to Set Aside the Verdict) is an Important Trial Consideration

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Standard of Review

After the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief, you, as the defendant, move for a directed verdict. (Check out this article too for more on directed verdicts.) The court denies the motion for a directed verdict. You put on your defense and then the case is submitted to the jury. The jury returns a verdict in favor the plaintiff. You then move to set aside the verdict (also called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The trial court denies your motion and enters final judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. You appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion for...

18 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Election of Remedies PRIOR to Final Judgment

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Oftentimes, a plaintiff will plead alternative claims or theories of liability against a defendant(s). Pleading in the alternative is allowed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(g). The plaintiff is entitled to elect--between two mutually exclusive (alternative) remedies--the remedy it prefers any time prior to the entry of final judgment. See Liddle v. A.F. Dozer, Inc., 777 So.2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Burr v. Norris, 667 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“Plaintiffs are also allowed to plead inconsistent or alternative actions and need only elect remedies before final judgment.”) This allows the plaintiff to present...

20 February

0 Comments

Sticky

The Nonparty Fabre Defendant

Posted by David Adelstein

in Burden of Proof, Trial Perspectives

I want to discuss the concept of a “Fabre defendant.” This is an important concept in negligence cases, particularly personal injury and property damage cases. “A ‘Fabre defendant’ is a nonparty defendant whom a party defendant asserts is wholly of partially responsible for the negligence alleged [by the plaintiff].” Salazar v. Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc., 986 So.2d 620, n.1 (Fla.2d DCA 2007). As further explained in Florida Statute s. 768.81(3): (3) Apportionment of damages.--In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the...

27 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Jury Trial Considerations: Directed Verdict and the Verdict Form

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Previously, I discussed a motion for directed verdict and, then, a motion to set aside a jury’s verdict. This is an important procedural vehicle to know because a party opposing a claim generally always moves for a direct verdict. In some instances, the court reserves ruling on the directed verdict to see how the jury decides the case. If the jury enters a verdict in favor of the party moving for a directed verdict (e.g., the defendant) then the court does not need to rule on the motion for directed verdict (it becomes moot). Recently, I wrote an article about a...

15 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Inconsistent Verdict Form – Make Sure to Timely Object

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

The verdict form is a very important aspect of civil jury trials. This is the form the jury fills out during deliberation to determine liability and damages. Previously, I explained the difference between a general verdict form and a special interrogatory verdict form and the importance of timely objections to the verdict form. Be sure to consider and review (and, object, if need be) the type of verdict form submitted to the jury as well as the verdict form filled out by the jury (especially with a special interrogatory verdict form). With a special interrogatory verdict form, there is the possibility...

15 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for a Directed Verdict and, then, a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

Moving for a directed verdict is a standard procedure in a jury trial. Simply put, after the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief (evidence supporting its claims against the defendant), the defendant moves for a directed verdict stating that even assuming all of the evidence is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that evidence favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to prove its case as a matter of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that evidence. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge v....