11th Circuit reverses because District Court was too “niece” during voir dire

In Fylling v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (Feb. 1, 2024), an 11th Cir. panel unanimously reversed a S.D. Fla. judgment that followed a two-week trial. The jury awarded Plaintiff $750,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $75,000 because of Plaintiff’s 90% comparative negligence.

The problem was that one of the jurors had a niece who worked for Defendant. The juror didn’t disclose that fact during voir dire, but the district judge found out after opening statements. Because the juror had answered “yes” to the general question that she could be fair to Plaintiff, the judge left her on the jury, intending to make her an alternate at the end of the trial. The judge later changed course and concluded that there was no reason to dismiss the juror, over Plaintiff’s objection.

The 11th Cir. appellate panel held that the trial judge erred by not putting the juror under oath so that she could be examined in detail about her interest in the case. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

It’s hard to see what the Defendant could have done here to avoid this waste of time and expense–the trial had already been going 9 days when the trial court announced that it wouldn’t excuse the juror after all.

Subscribe to Taylor English Insights by topic here.