KENDALL SKATING CENTERS, INC., AND EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
TIMOTHY MARTIN, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Contrary to the trial court’s assertion that there are “no bounds” during closing argument we hold that there are indeed bounds which in this case were grossly exceeded. The plaintiff’s characterization of the defendants as despicable and his assertion that both they and their lawyers were liars compels a reversal. See Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Because this case must be retried we address one other point raised by the appellants and hold that the trial court properly refused to apply the fireman’s rule. See Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1973); Price v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…lay it off on anybody you can lay it off to. Well, fair — lay it off anyplace but don’t lay it off on us because we just don’t want to hear about it and that is not right and that is not prop-er_[e.s.] . See Kendall Skating Centers, Inc. v. Martin, 448 So. 2d. 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Russell, Inc. v. Trento, 445 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Seshadri v. Morales, 412 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wright & Ford Millworks, Inc. v. Long 412 So. 2d 892 (Fla.…
-
Albertson's, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…he credibility of a witness. However, we do not think the remarks constitute reversible error. The cases cited by Albertson’s in support of a reversal involved far more egregious remarks than those here. See Kendall Skating Centers, Inc. v. Martin, 448 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (reversal required where plaintiff’s closing argument characterized defendants as despicable and asserted that both they and their lawyers were liars); Sequin v. Hauser Motor Co., 350 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (defense couns…
-
Kaas v. Atlas Chem. Co., 623 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…al Responsibility and will not be condoned.” Importantly, such impropriety does not require a contemporaneous objection. Stokes v. Wet ’N Wild, Inc., 523 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Moore, supra., p. 793; Kendall Skating Centers, Inc. v. Martin, 448 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There is no question but that counsel is permitted to demonstrate inconsistencies between witnesses’ testimony and within a witness’s own testimony. But lines have been drawn as to what constitutes proper comment and what is egr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973)
- Price v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)