Diana Coba, etc. v. Tricam Industries, Inc.
164 So. 3d 637
| Fla. | 2015Background
- Roberto Coba died after falling from a Tricam aluminum ladder; his estate (Diana Coba) sued Tricam Industries (manufacturer) and Home Depot (seller) alleging strict liability (design defect) and negligence (design, marketing, distribution).
- At trial, plaintiff’s expert testified the ladder could ‘‘false-lock’’ and telescope; defendants’ expert attributed the fall to slippage and denied any design defect. Plaintiff later withdrew a warnings claim.
- The jury’s special interrogatories found: NO design defect, YES defendant negligence (as legal cause), and assigned 20% fault to defendants / 80% to decedent; substantial damages were awarded. Neither party objected when the verdict was read and the jury was discharged.
- Defendants moved post‑verdict to set aside the verdict as fundamentally inconsistent (negligence finding impossible without a design defect); trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for plaintiff (reduced for comparative negligence). Both parties appealed.
- The Third DCA applied a products‑liability “fundamental nature” exception and entered judgment for defendants; Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflict among districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "fundamental nature" exception excusing a timely objection applies in products‑liability design cases | Coba argued defendants waived the inconsistent‑verdict challenge by failing to object before jury discharge; if court relieves waiver, remedy should be new trial | Defendants argued the inconsistency was "fundamental" (jury found no design defect) so objection was not waived and judgment should be entered for defendants | Court held no special exception; timely objection before jury discharge is required in civil cases and the "fundamental nature" exception is rejected |
| Proper remedy for an inconsistent verdict when timely challenged | N/A (Coba argued new trial if relief granted) | Defendants sought judgment notwithstanding/verdict in their favor | Where timely objection is made and jury cannot resolve inconsistency, the proper remedy is a new trial; courts should not resolve the inconsistency themselves in favor of one party |
| Whether appellate courts may resolve an inconsistent verdict by elevating one finding over another | Coba urged preserving jury verdict and waiver principles | Defendants urged appellate entry of judgment for defense when one finding (no defect) precludes the other | Court held appellate courts must not substitute for jury factfinding or resolve inconsistencies; a jury — not the court — must resolve inconsistencies |
| Whether inconsistency here warranted relief despite failure to object at trial | Coba: failure to object waived the claim and original judgment should be reinstated | Defendants: the inconsistency was dispositive and fundamental, so relief was proper despite no prior objection | Court held defendants waived the issue by failing to object; reinstated trial court judgment for Coba |
Key Cases Cited
- Tricam Indus., Inc. v. Coba, 100 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (district court applying "fundamental nature" exception; quashed by Fla. S.Ct.)
- North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (origin of the products‑liability "fundamental nature" approach)
- Nissan Motor Co. v. Alvarez, 891 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (adopting the "fundamental nature" exception)
- Cocca v. Smith, 821 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (general rule requiring objection to inconsistent verdict before jury discharge)
- W.W. Gay Mech. Contractor, Inc. v. Wharfside Two, Ltd., 545 So. 2d 1348 (Fla.) (approving new trial remedy where verdict was inconsistent and no opportunity to correct)
- Moorman v. American Safety Equipment, 594 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (necessity of allowing jury to correct verdict and deference to jury findings)
- Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for the jury)
- Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1953) (waiver of verdict form defects if not objected to at trial)