 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bell v. Greissman4/20/2005
Patricia Bell sued for medical malpractice for the wrongful death of her daughter and the jury returned a verdict absolving Appellees. We reverse, concluding that the trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause of a juror whose comments raised significant doubt concerning his ability to be impartial.
During voir dire, Juror Furey stated that he had worked for five years as an investigator for a law firm specializing in medical malpractice defense. Upon being asked if he brought some related feelings to the court, Furey replied, "Honestly I do. . . . [As a juror] I would try to keep an open mind, but I am definitely of the opinion that [damage awards] need to be capped and it has gone detrimental to the healthcare system." He declared that his beliefs would "probably" interfere with his obligations as a juror. In response to Appellees' attempt to rehabilitate him, Furey stated, "I would do what I believe is the fair thing, yes. . . ." "[My decision] would be based on my personal beliefs, correct."
The court denied the challenge of Juror Furey for cause and also denied another challenge as to a different juror. Bell exhausted her peremptory challenges, thereby precluding her from challenging two other jurors that she identified as ones against whom she wanted to use peremptory strikes.
We apply a reasonable doubt standard in resolving questions involving jurors' ability to be fair and impartial. It is now well-established that if there is reasonable doubt about the juror's impartiality, the juror should be dismissed for cause. Goldenberg v. Reg'l Import & Export Trucking Co., Inc., 674 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
A new trial is required where the trial court denies a challenge for cause based on a juror's equivocal or conditional responses that are not rehabilitated and where a reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possessed the requisite state of mind necessary to render an impartial decision. Salgado v. State, 829 So. 2d 342, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
We recognize that a trial court is afforded great discretion in ruling on challenges for cause. Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2002); Pentecost v. State, 545 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1989); Gore v. State, 706 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1977). Nevertheless, close cases involving challenges to the impartiality of potential jurors should be resolved in favor of excusing the juror rather than leaving doubt as to impartiality. Williams v. State, 638 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
We conclude that the totality of Furey's remarks raised reasonable doubt as to his ability to be impartial. See Imbino v. State, 555 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reasonable doubt found where a juror admitted he "probably" would be prejudiced, even though he then asserted he "probably" could follow the judge's instructions); Goldenberg; Montozzi v. State, 633 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Nash v. Gen. Motors Corp., 734 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
In Goldenberg, a juror was the daughter of an orthopedic surgeon who had been sued for malpractice "many times." The juror related a personal experience with her father and stated "some people are dishonest." This court found it was error for the trial court not to excuse the juror for cause after she had expressed bias, based on her personal experiences, against the particular type of personal injury suit brought by the plaintiffs. Further, the court concluded that the juror was not rehabilitated simply by adding that she was a fair person.
Similarly, in Nash, where the claim was based on a design defect, a prospective juror was challenged for cause after indicating that she harbored prejudices about personal injury lawsui
Page 1 2 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|