Tricam Industries, Inc. v. Coba
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14333
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Decedent fell from a Tricam-manufactured ladder sold by Home Depot and died 10 days later.
- Plaintiff alleged strict liability/design defect and negligence including manufacturing, design, sale, distribution, and warnings.
- Trial evidence focused solely on design defect; plaintiff withdrew manufacturing defect claim.
- Jury found no design defect but found negligence; awarded damages and apportioned 80% decedent’s comparative negligence.
- Verdict form framed two questions about design defect and negligence; plaintiff’s evidence did not support negligence apart from design.
- Post-trial, juror nondisclosure prompted motions for new trial and for set-aside verdict; trial court denied new trial and defendants’ set-aside motion; appellate court reversed in part and remanded with instructions, affirmed in part regarding juror nondisclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fundamental inconsistency of verdict? | Plaintiff argues inconsistency invalidates verdict. | Defendants argue inconsistency warrants set-aside and judgment for defendants. | Verdict inconsistency deemed fundamental; court reverses and enters judgment for defendants. |
| Waiver of objection to inconsistency due to not objecting before discharge? | No waiver; inconsistency should be reviewed. | Waiver applies unless fundamental inconsistency. | Adopted fundamental nature exception; no waiver required to review. |
| Juror Gamboa non-disclosure merits new trial? | Non-disclosure could mandate new trial. | No due diligence by plaintiff; not enough for new trial. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no new trial granted or affirmed for juror non-disclosure. |
| Remedy for irreconcilable verdict? | Remand for new trial on all issues. | Remand unnecessary; judgment for defendants appropriate. | Remand with instructions to enter judgment for defendants; otherwise, not necessary due to lack of other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n v. McCollister, 480 So.2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (fundamental inconsistency permits reversal/remand for judgment in prevailing party)
- Alvarez v. Nissan Motor Co., 891 So.2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (design defect vs. negligence inconsistency; fundamental)
- NACRA v. McCollister, 480 So.2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (verdicts inconsistent when only evidence relates to design defect)
- Siegel v. MGM Grand Hotel, 506 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (remedies for irreconcilable verdicts; new trial often required)
- Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) (due diligence in juror inquiry; guidance for nondisclosure)
- Moorman v. American Safety Equipment, 594 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (waiver principle for inconsistent verdicts; importance of timely objection)