PERSONAL INJURY | AUTO ACCIDENTS | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE
A recent Fourth District Court of Appeal decision shows how courts balance protecting jury privacy with ensuring fair verdicts, while establishing important precedent for when damage awards are too low.
Published: August 27, 2026
Case: Barrera v. Rodriguez-Orengo
Court: Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: April 8, 2026
The Applicable Law
Florida law carefully balances two competing interests: protecting the sanctity of jury deliberations while ensuring fair trials. When jurors fail to disclose important information during jury selection, courts apply the three-part test established in De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995).
For a new trial based on juror nondisclosure, the moving party must prove: (1) the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case, (2) the juror concealed the information during questioning, and (3) the failure to disclose was not due to the complaining party’s lack of diligence.
Florida Statutes Section 768.043 and 768.74 allow trial courts to order additur when a jury verdict is “clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances.” This means courts can increase damage awards that are unreasonably low.
Key Legal Rule: Courts can increase jury awards that fall below what the evidence clearly supports, but post-trial juror interviews are rare and require strict proof of material concealment that couldn’t have been discovered with proper diligence.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was rear-ended while stopped at a red light in Pembroke Pines on November 17, 2021. The record reflected that the defendant driver did not dispute causing the accident. The plaintiff was transported by ambulance to Memorial West Hospital and remained overnight.
The evidence described in the court’s opinion showed the plaintiff underwent extensive medical treatment, including therapy, orthopedic visits, injections, imaging studies, and three surgeries. The allegations in the case indicated past medical expenses exceeded $663,000, past lost wages totaled $78,880, and projected future lost earnings were $567,120.
The defendants’ strategy, according to the court’s opinion, was not to dispute the accident or initial treatment, but to contest causation for the more serious injuries. Their expert testified that the plaintiff’s complaints were attributable to preexisting degenerative spinal conditions rather than the collision.
During closing arguments, the record reflected that the defense told the jury that $36,670 represented reasonable damages for emergency services, hospital care, diagnostic testing, and chiropractic treatment. However, the jury awarded only $20,000 total—$19,300 for past medical expenses and $700 for past lost wages—with nothing for future expenses or non-economic damages.
The Court’s Analysis
Juror Disclosure Issues
The court addressed two jurors who allegedly failed to fully disclose their litigation history during jury selection. During voir dire, according to the court’s opinion, the trial judge asked whether anyone had ever sued or been sued.
Juror McNabb’s Disclosure
The first juror, who became jury foreperson, disclosed “Construction. A lien turned into a very large case” and “then a foreclosure.” Post-verdict investigation revealed this juror had participated in at least seven lawsuits across two counties, including appellate litigation involving defamation, real estate disputes, lien foreclosures, and tortious interference claims.
The court found that while this extensive litigation history might have been “material,” the other two prongs of the De La Rosa test were not satisfied. The court noted: “McNabb did disclose some litigation history” and “may well not have understood the trial court’s question(s) to require her to rattle off all seven of the lawsuits that she had been involved in over a roughly fifteen-year period.”
The Diligence Requirement
Importantly, the court emphasized that modern technology makes it easier to research jurors’ backgrounds. The opinion stated: “Given the ambiguities cited above, trial counsel’s apparent failure to use technology to explore Juror McNabb’s litigation history prior to the verdict further supports our finding that they did not exercise sufficient diligence.”
Key Distinction: Courts expect lawyers to use available technology to research juror backgrounds when there are ambiguities in responses during jury selection.
Juror Brenden’s Case
The second juror disclosed no prior litigation but was later found to have been one of about 188 plaintiffs in an inverse condemnation action against Broward County. The court easily found this nondisclosure was not material, noting: “Nothing indicates that Brenden had any active or meaningful participation in the litigation.”
The Additur Ruling
The court’s most significant ruling involved the inadequate damage award. The court applied the principle that “where there is undisputed evidence supporting an award of damages and the jury fails to make such an award, it is error for the trial court to deny a motion for additur.” Garrett v. Miami Transfer Co., Inc., 964 So. 2d 286, 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
The court noted that during closing arguments, the defense specifically told the jury that $36,670 was “reasonable” for various medical expenses and treatments. The court stated: “Appellees cannot be heard to argue that such an amount, which they told the jury was ‘reasonable,’ was not ‘clearly . . . inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances.'”
Critical Rule: When a defendant concedes certain damages are reasonable during trial, a jury award below that amount may be inadequate as a matter of law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I get a new trial if I discover a juror lied during jury selection?
Not automatically. Florida courts apply a strict three-part test requiring you to prove the undisclosed information was material, the juror actually concealed it (rather than misunderstood the question), and your lawyer couldn’t have discovered it with reasonable diligence. Courts strongly protect jury privacy and rarely grant post-trial juror interviews.
What should my lawyer do during jury selection to protect my case?
Your attorney should ask specific, clear questions about potential jurors’ backgrounds and, when appropriate, lawyers should take advantage of technology and research jurors.
Can a judge increase my jury award if it seems too low?
Yes, under certain circumstances. Florida law allows judges to order “additur” when a jury verdict is clearly inadequate given the evidence. This is especially likely when the defendant’s own lawyers conceded during trial that certain damages were reasonable, but the jury awarded less than that amount.
What happens if the other side admits my damages are reasonable but the jury awards less?
This creates a strong case for additur. As this case shows, when defendants tell a jury that specific damages are “reasonable” during closing arguments, will have difficulty suggesting a lower jury award was adequate. The court will likely order the award increased to at least the amount the defense conceded was reasonable.
How do courts balance jury privacy with fair trials?
Florida courts strongly favor protecting jury deliberations and juror privacy. Post-trial juror interviews are “strongly disfavored and should be rare.” Courts will only allow them when there’s clear evidence of material concealment that couldn’t have been discovered before the verdict with proper diligence.
Cases involving jury misconduct and inadequate damage awards require experienced legal representation who understands both the technical requirements for challenging verdicts and the strategic considerations during trial. The attorneys at Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC have the knowledge and resources to protect your rights throughout the litigation process, from jury selection through post-trial motions.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Barrera v. Rodriguez-Orengo, No. 4D2024-2661 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 8, 2026)
Applicable Authorities:
- Fla. Stat. § 768.043 (2024)
- Fla. Stat. § 768.74 (2024)
- Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431(h)
Legal Disclaimer
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is subject to change, and the application of legal principles varies depending on the specific facts of each case. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult a licensed Florida attorney. This post discusses legal concepts and principles addressed in the cited court opinion and context of that opinion. It is not intended to make any assertions about the truth of any allegations or evidence relating to any party to that case.
Citations & Sources
- De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
- Sterling v. Feldbaum, 980 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Gamsen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 68 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Moore v. Perry, 944 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Garrett v. Miami Transfer Co., Inc., 964 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1991)
- Child.’s Med. Ctr., P.A. v. Kim, 221 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Roberts ex rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002)
Source URL: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2487183/opinion/Opinion_2024-2661.pdf
