 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Magana10/5/2005
Lorraine and Donald Taylor (hereinafter Taylor) appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for new trial based on the fact that a juror did not disclose a pending lawsuit in response to voir dire questioning. We reverse.
Taylor sued Ignacio Magana, M.D. and Ignacio Magana, P.A., among others not pertinent to this appeal, for medical malpractice.
At trial, each of the persons in the venire were furnished a printed questionnaire entitled "general voir dire questionnaire." The initial portion of the voir dire was conducted by the trial judge herself by asking each juror to respond to the questions on the printed questionnaire. The questionnaire asked for the following information: name; community; occupation and duration; list of all occupations during adult life; marital status, whether married, single, divorced, or widowed; occupation of spouse; occupation of adult children; prior jury service; whether juror or immediate family member has been a party to a lawsuit, and if so, whether plaintiff or defendant; whether a personal injury claim was made against juror or family member; whether juror or family member ever made a claim for personal injury; and whether juror was ever a witness.
During the voir dire conducted by the trial judge, the following discussion occurred between the trial judge and prospective juror, John Hill:
COURT: Mr. Hill.
HILL: My name is John Hill. I work at Winn-Dixie.
Married or single, no.
COURT: Excuse me. Everything else is no?
HILL: Yes.
When Hill was subsequently individually questioned by the attorneys, he was asked only questions regarding his job , education, hometown, hobbies, and parents' occupations. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Magana was not negligent. A final judgment was entered in favor of Magana against Taylor.
Following trial, Taylor filed a Motion to Interview Jurors. The motion alleged that on the day of the verdict, juror Gilman Farley telephoned Taylor's attorney. Farley explained that he had given Hill a ride home after the trial and that Hill mentioned that he and his mother had been sued and that Taylor's attorney represented the party that sued them. The motion also indicated that a docket search revealed that Hill was a defendant in a pending case in Palm Beach County.
Taylor additionally filed a Motion for New Trial. One ground alleged in the motion was the misconduct of Hill in failing to reveal the lawsuit in response to the jury questionnaire.
The trial court granted the motion to interview jurors. The following discussion occurred at the interview:
PLAINTIFF: Was there any particular reason why you didn't tell the court when we were asking you questions, whether you had been a party to a lawsuit, you were the defendant in a lawsuit before we started the trial?
HILL: Maybe I didn't understand, that's why. To me it was over.
PLAINTIFF: You thought your case was over?
HILL: Yes.
*
DEFENSE: Sure. When we were asking you questions when we were trying to pick jurors for this case, did you realize that the attorneys wanted to know about the case involving you and your mom?
HILL: No.
DEFENSE: You didn't, okay.
Did you purposely try to hide from us, the lawyers, the fact that you had been involved in this case with your mom?
HILL: No. Because I don't understand. That's why.
The trial court entered a written order denying the motion for new trial. The order, in pertinent part, stated:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|