Hollenbeck v. Hooks
993 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
During voir dire, appellee's trial counsel stated that he was a consumer justice attorney who
was representing appellee, a merchant marine, and not “some fancy company.” Opposing
counsel objected to this statement, noting that the attorney had, in fact, been retained by
appellee's insurer. Appellant's objection to the statement was sustained, but his motion for
mistrial was denied based on a finding that the remark had no visible impact on the jury.
Later motions for mistrial were also denied as was the motion for new trial. The appellate
court, finding an abuse of discretion, reversed and explained that the misleading statement
implied that an award of damages would be paid solely by appellee. The statement was
impossible to refute at trial because it would have been clear error for the trial court to inform
the jury venire that in fact, appellee's counsel was retained by an insurance company. The
error could not be deemed harmless for purposes of the harmless error statute, § 59.041, Fla. Stat. During the trial, there was extensive testimony regarding the injured party’s future
economic and non-economic damages. Nonetheless, despite the jury’s finding that the
appellant suffered a permanent injury, it rejected any liability on the part of appellee for
future economic or non-economic damages.