Robert L. Shevin

This case involved a workplace injury lawsuit by Martin Bakerman, an assistant store manager for The Bombay Company, who fell from a defective, too-short ladder while retrieving merchandise and fractured his heel. Bakerman sued his employer alleging that its repeated refusal to replace the known dangerous ladder despite employee complaints constituted an intentional tort, allowing him to bypass workers' compensation immunity. The jury found for Bakerman, but the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed on rehearing, directing entry of judgment for Bombay. The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient under the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity, as interpreted in Turner v. PCR, Inc., because there was no deliberate intent to injure and no concealment of the obvious danger from the employee. The decision emphasized that such exceptions must be narrowly construed per the Florida Supreme Court's Taylor v. School Board of Brevard County ruling.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Vega v. Vega, a husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing that the alimony awarded to his wife was excessive. The court reversed the permanent and rehabilitative alimony awards, finding them excessive because they amounted to 64 to 80 percent of the husband's net monthly income, which prior decisions have held exceeds a payor's ability to pay. The court reasoned that alimony must be set based on net income and be fair to both parties, taking into account the wife's ability to earn income after completing her nursing studies. On remand, the trial court was directed to establish reasonable alimony amounts the husband can afford.

family law

This case involved a worker's claim against his employer for retaliatory discharge under Florida's workers' compensation statute, section 440.205, after he was injured on the job and subsequently fired. The trial court had entered summary judgment for the employer, struck the claim for lost wages, struck the demand for a jury trial, and struck the request for attorney's fees. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim because the record showed disputed issues of material fact about whether the employer knew of the injury and fired the worker in retaliation, and it also reversed the orders striking the lost wages claim and the jury trial demand. The court affirmed the order striking the attorney's fees claim, holding that the statute does not authorize such fees in retaliatory discharge actions. The decision turned on the standard for summary judgment, which prohibits credibility determinations and requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as well as precedent recognizing a jury trial right in these statutory damages actions.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Meade v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. During jury selection, a prospective juror described being the victim of a violent home invasion robbery by a convicted felon and drew a parallel to the defendant; the trial court denied the defense's challenge for cause, forcing the use of a peremptory strike. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the juror's responses raised reasonable doubt as to her impartiality, she was not properly rehabilitated, and the defendant had preserved the issue by exhausting peremptory challenges and identifying objectionable jurors who remained.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Anthony Santiago's appeal of his conviction for burglary of a conveyance in Florida state court. Santiago argued that the trial court should have granted a mistrial after a detective's testimony referenced taking a DNA sample at the jail, which the defense claimed prejudiced the jury by implying pretrial detention. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge acted within its discretion by sustaining the objection and providing a curative instruction to disregard the reference, as it was an isolated comment in a lengthy trial and did not necessitate a mistrial. The court also declined to address a sentencing classification issue because it was not properly preserved in the lower court.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sims v. State, the defendant was convicted of cocaine possession after officers testified that he dropped a baggie of the drug during questioning, though one officer lacked knowledge of the event and the other relied on an arrest report without independent recall. The defense had subpoenaed a witness expected to testify that the defendant was not in possession of drugs, but the witness failed to appear for trial despite the subpoena. The trial court denied repeated requests to issue a writ of bodily attachment to compel the witness's presence, and the defendant proceeded to trial without the witness after stating a desire to do so against counsel's advice. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant had a constitutional right to compulsory process for witnesses under subpoena and that the trial court lacked discretion to refuse enforcement, with no valid waiver or harmless error given the weak evidence against the defendant. The case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure