From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keller Industries, Inc. v. Morgart

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 21, 1982
412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Summary

holding that error regarding inconsistent interrogatory verdicts could not be corrected because counsel failed to bring inconsistency to court's attention before jury discharged

Summary of this case from Latner v. Reusler Assoc

Opinion

No. 81-1082.

April 21, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, Maurice M. Paul, J.

Hubert W. Williams of Robertson, Williams, Duane, Lewis Ranson, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Robert J. Felice of LaGrone Felice, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.


This is an appeal from a judgment in a products liability case. While we agree with appellant that there was error regarding the inconsistent interrogatory verdicts, we cannot reverse the judgment. The fault should not be laid upon the trial judge; rather, it must be placed upon the defendant's trial attorney who led the court into error by approving, or failing to object to, the form of the verdict before it was submitted to the jury. Trial counsel also failed to bring the inconsistent verdicts to the attention of the trial court before the jury was discharged thus preventing the timely correction of the problem by the trial judge. For all we know, defendant's trial counsel intentionally, for tactical reasons, chose not to bring the problem to the court's attention. Counsel for appellant on appeal was not trial counsel. See Robbins v. Graham, 404 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Department of Transportation v. Denmark, 366 So.2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So.2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Keller Industries, Inc. v. Morgart

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 21, 1982
412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

holding that error regarding inconsistent interrogatory verdicts could not be corrected because counsel failed to bring inconsistency to court's attention before jury discharged

Summary of this case from Latner v. Reusler Assoc

indicating reversal was not required in a case where the jury entered an inconsistent verdict because trial counsel failed to address the error before the jury was discharged, thus preventing the trial court from timely correcting problem

Summary of this case from Budget Rent-A-Car Sys. v. Santonino
Case details for

Keller Industries, Inc. v. Morgart

Case Details

Full title:KELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT, v. ROBERT MORGART AND WILMA MORGART…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Apr 21, 1982

Citations

412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Francois v. Wainwright

Nor did the state court apply the rule inconsistently or in a novel or unexpectedly harsh manner. Although…

Sweet Paper Sales Corp. v. Feldman

As noted in Robbins, 404 So.2d at 771, "relitigation would deprive the appellants of their earned verdict and…