Supreme Court Jettisons Common Law Precedent In Product Liability Cases Back To 1985 In Coba V. Tricam

New decision by the Florida Supreme Court Eliminates Important Defense Protection in Cases Involving Inconsistent Verdicts

In Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 40 Fla. L. Weekly S257a (Fla. May 14, 2015), the Florida Supreme Court eliminated an important common law protection for defendants in cases where defense counsel fails to contemporaneously object to an inconsistent jury verdict.

In Coba, Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of an aluminum ladder alleging strict products liability for a defective design. The complaint also alleged the manufacturer was negligent in failing to design the ladder in a reasonably safe condition. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court authored a verdict form for the jury to use in deliberations. The form unwisely asked the strict liability question without any reference to strict liability terminology. It then placed the design defect question in advance of the question of negligence. The following is the Coba jury's verdict form entries:

The jury returned a verdict for $1.5m and the court discharged the jury with no objection from defense counsel. The manufacturer subsequently filed a motion to set aside the verdict as inconsistent. The motion argued there could be no finding of negligent design without a finding that a design defect contributed to the accident.

The Third Florida District Court of Appeal agreed and determined the inconsistency was of a "fundamental nature" such that the failure to contemporaneously object did not result in waiver. The appellate court reasoned that, regardless of the existence of a timely objection, it could not reconcile the jury's conclusion that there was no design defect but that the manufacturer was liable on a negligence claim predicated exclusively on design defect. The Third DCA then resolved the inconsistency in favor of the defense rather than remanding the case for a new trial. The court reasoned that plaintiff had only put on evidence of a design defect as the basis for the products liability claim. Thus, the jury's failure to find a design defect meant "there was no evidence to support any other cause of action [and] no issue to be resolved on remand."

The Supreme Court overturned the Third DCA and held that any objection to an inconsistent verdict is waived if not made before the jury is discharged. The Supreme Court determined that a "fundamental nature" exception to this rule in products liability cases is "at odds with the [....] policy reasons...