You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Aquila v. Brisk Transportation, L.P.

Citations: 170 So. 3d 924; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11407; 2015 WL 4549484Docket: No. 4D12-4498

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 29, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this personal injury case, the plaintiff, Stephanie Aquila, appeals a jury verdict that absolved defendants of liability for a multi-vehicle accident that caused severe injuries to her and her child. A pivotal issue arose during jury selection when the court denied the plaintiff's request to backstrike jurors after a juror was excused due to a vacation conflict. Although the plaintiff's counsel objected, they did not identify specific jurors for backstriking or pursue a mistrial, thereby failing to preserve the issue for appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision based on the precedent set in Tedder v. Video Electronics, Inc., which requires parties to exhaust peremptory challenges and specify which juror they would have challenged to preserve objections for appeal. Additionally, the appeal process was hindered by an extensive electronic record of over 16,000 pages, emphasizing the importance of streamlining records to include only essential documents. Ultimately, the appellate court found in favor of the defendants due to the procedural missteps and affirmed the jury's verdict, leaving the plaintiff without relief.

Legal Issues Addressed

Effect of Failing to Object to Jury Panel

Application: The plaintiff's acceptance of the jury panel without further objections resulted in the forfeiture of appellate review on jury selection grounds.

Reasoning: In this case, after an extended jury selection process, the plaintiff's attorney made no further objections and accepted the jury, leading to the conclusion that the issue was not preserved.

Preservation of Jury Selection Issues for Appeal

Application: In this case, the plaintiff's counsel failed to preserve the issue of backstriking for appeal because they did not specify a particular juror to challenge after the jury panel was set.

Reasoning: The court's error in not permitting backstriking was noted, but the issue was not preserved for appeal because the counsel failed to identify a specific juror for backstriking after the panel was set.

Requirement to Exhaust Peremptory Challenges

Application: The case demonstrates that a party must exhaust all peremptory challenges and identify specific jurors they seek to challenge to preserve objections for appeal.

Reasoning: The preservation requirement in jury selection mandates that if a defendant believes a juror should be removed for cause, they must exhaust all peremptory challenges, request additional challenges, and specify which juror would have been challenged.

Streamlining the Record for Appeal

Application: The case underscores the necessity for parties to limit the appellate record to essential documents to facilitate the court's review process.

Reasoning: The electronic record for the case was excessively lengthy, totaling over 16,000 pages due to the appellant's request for all docket entries.