Pelham v. Walker
135 So. 3d 1114
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pelham sued Walker for negligence after a 2008 car accident; Walker admitted fault and the jury awarded Pelham limited past economic damages but zero future damages or noneconomic damages.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror (Juror G) stated she was "defense-oriented," had long experience evaluating claims, and expressed skepticism about noneconomic damages. Later she said she could follow the law.
- Pelham moved to strike Juror G for cause; the trial court denied the challenge and refused an extra peremptory when Pelham had exhausted hers.
- Pretrial the court granted a defense motion in limine excluding evidence that Pelham had been found disabled and received Social Security disability benefits; Pelham agreed.
- At trial defense questioning elicited testimony that Pelham did not work and had not sought work (portraying her as idle). Pelham sought to rebut by disclosing her Social Security disability status; the court denied that request.
- Pelham appealed the final judgment and the trial court’s denial of costs; the appellate court reversed the judgment and the costs order and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying challenge for cause to Juror G | Juror G's statements ("defense-oriented", skepticism of noneconomic damages, claim-evaluation background) created reasonable doubt about impartiality and required removal | Juror G later said she could be fair and follow the law; the court may rely on that rehabilitation and deny cause challenge | Reversed: trial court abused discretion—reasonable doubt about Juror G's impartiality existed and rehabilitation was insufficient |
| Whether court erred in refusing to allow Pelham to disclose Social Security disability after defense questioning | Defense opened the door by eliciting testimony implying Pelham voluntarily did not work; fairness required allowing Pelham to explain she was deemed disabled and receives benefits | Pretrial in limine excluded disability evidence; that ruling should stand and bar disclosure | Reversed: trial court abused discretion—once defense opened the door, Pelham could present disability evidence to correct a misleading impression |
| Whether error was harmless or reversible | Pelham argued errors affected core credibility and damage issues and were reversible | Walker argued errors were harmless given limited economic awards | Court found errors harmful and remanded for a new trial on damages |
| Whether Pelham was entitled to costs after prevailing in trial court | Pelham argued prevailing party is entitled to costs under Fla. Stat.; Walker conceded Pelham recovered judgment so costs proper | Trial court denied costs | Because final judgment is reversed, the costs order is also reversed and subject to proceedings on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ault v. State, 866 So.2d 674 (Fla. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for cause-challenge denials)
- Pacot v. Wheeler, 758 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (jurors expressing difficulty with pain-and-suffering awards must be excused if not rehabilitated)
- Johnson v. Reynolds, 121 So. 793 (Fla. 1929) (skepticism of post-voir-dire recantation of expressed bias)
- Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96 (Fla. 2008) (rules on evidentiary discretion and limits)
- Lawrence v. State, 846 So.2d 440 (Fla. 2003) ("opening the door" permits admission to qualify or explain prior testimony)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Gordon, 712 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (collateral-source evidence may be allowed when party misleads jury)
- Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc., 104 So.3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (prevailing party entitlement to costs)