Holmes v. Area Glass, Inc.
117 So. 3d 492
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Jarvis and Marsha Holmes sued Area Glass, Inc. and State Farm (2009), alleging negligent windshield replacement by Area Glass and negligent hiring/oversight by State Farm, causing Mr. Holmes physical injury and other damages. The complaint did not plead vicarious liability against State Farm.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Area Glass before trial (and apparently settled with it); the dismissal/settlement was not part of the trial record on appeal.
- Plaintiffs submitted a verdict form that omitted Area Glass from the caption; State Farm objected, arguing captions should not be changed and that omission could create unfair inferences.
- The trial court required Area Glass remain in the verdict-form caption. During deliberations the jury asked why Area Glass was listed; the court declined to clarify and told them to "look to the testimony and the evidence" and draw conclusions.
- The jury returned a defense verdict for State Farm. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial arguing the caption implied settlement/dismissal (impermissible under Fla. Stat. § 768.041); the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing a dismissed defendant (Area Glass) on the verdict form violated the statutory prohibition on informing the jury of dismissal/settlement | Holmes: Excluding Area Glass from caption was proper to avoid implying settlement; inclusion improperly informed jury of dismissal/settlement | State Farm: Captions should not be changed; listing is harmless and prevents juror confusion about insurer relationships | Court: Inclusion violated § 768.041; reversible error because jury likely inferred dismissal/settlement and that influenced verdict |
| Whether the trial court’s answer to the jury question exacerbated any error | Holmes: Court should have clarified only State Farm remained; any nonresponsive answer invited impermissible inference | State Farm: No concrete harm; any confusion could be resolved by testimony/argument | Court: Telling jurors to "draw conclusions" compounded error by effectively inviting inference of dismissal/settlement; contributed to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Const., Inc., 3 So.3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) (prohibition on informing jury of settlement/dismissal is unambiguous and violation is reversible error)
- Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of E. Fla., 498 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (caption not part of pleading for purposes of motions directed to the pleading)
- Moore v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 898 So.2d 725 (Ala. 2004) (trial court has duty to prevent jury from learning that a listed party declined participation or was otherwise not tried)
- Muhammad v. Toys R Us, Inc., 668 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reference to settlement during voir dire or argument requires new trial)
- Henry v. Beacon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 424 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (reference to settlement in proceedings mandates reversal)
- Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) (apportionment/Fabre defendant framework for listing nonparticipating parties)