JEFFREY KNAPP AND DINA KNAPP, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCIS SHORES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL SHORES, DECEASED, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that limiting voir dire and closing arguments for one plaintiff was reversible error, and striking a comparative negligence finding based on a seat belt defense was also error due to lack of evidence.
[1] Limiting voir dire to fifteen minutes for both plaintiffs after a very short voir dire by the court constitutes reversible error.
[2] Limiting closing arguments to thirty-five minutes after a seven-day trial with twenty witnesses and complex medical evidence constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in a negligence case where liability was admitted and the trial was only on damages. One plaintiff received a no-da…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Closing Argument Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Jeffrey and Dina Knapp from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict which found: (1) no permanent injury to the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp, resulting in a no-damage verdict for him, and (2) $30,000 in damages for the plaintiff Dina Knapp, which damages were reduced by 50% due to the latter’s failure to use a seat belt. The.action below sounded in negligence and arose out of an automobile accident; liability was admitted, and the trial was on damages only. We reverse for a new trial as to the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp, and affirm as to the plaintiff Dina Knapp except for the comparative negligence finding which is stricken. We reach these results based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error as to the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp based on the circumstances of this case in (1) limiting the voir dire of the prospective jury to a total of fifteen minutes for both plaintiffs after the court had conducted a very short voir dire consisting of only seven general questions, Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (twenty-minute voir dire of jury for one defendant after short voir dire by court held reversible error); cf. Allen v. Se-Go Indus., 510 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA) (twenty-minute voir dire for one plaintiff upheld after extensive voir dire by court), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1273 (Fla.1987), and (2) limiting the closing arguments to the jury for both plaintiffs to thirty-five minutes after seven days of trial in which twenty witnesses were called and complex medical evidence was adduced concerning a claimed brain injury to the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp. Bell v. Harland Rayvals Trans., Ltd., 501 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (thirty-minute limitation on closing argument held reversible error); Strong v. Mt. Dora Growers Coop., 495 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (twenty-minute limitation on closing argument held reversible error); Maleh v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (fifteen-minute limitation on closing argument held reversible error). We further conclude that the trial court’s limitation of ten minutes on the opening statement to the jury for both plaintiffs would have presented reversible error if the plaintiffs’ counsel’s objection below had been timely made; we trust, however, that upon retrial this unreasonable time limitation for opening statements will not be repeated. Maleh. The plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp’s remaining points on appeal need not be addressed as they are unlikely to recur on retrial.
Second, we conclude that the plaintiff Dina Knapp’s sole point on appeal presents reversible error. There was utterly no evidence adduced below that Dina Knapp’s seat belt in the subject automobile, in which she was riding as a passenger, was “fully operational,” and, thus, there was no legal basis upon which to submit the defendant’s seat-belt defense to the jury. See Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla.1984). The testimony of the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp that the equipment in the subject automobile was in “working order” does not establish, as urged, that Dina Knapp’s seat belt was fully operational. Youngentob v. Allstate Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Nor does Dina Knapp’s testimony that “we used to use [the seat belts] sometimes and sometimes not” constitute sufficient evidence to establish that the seat belt was fully operational. Devolder v. Sandage, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As observed by the Devolder court, Florida courts have consistently required that in order for the defendant in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident to assert a seat-belt defense, said defendant must, inter alia, adduce “competent evidence to show that, at or near the time of the accident, the seat belt or belts in the [plaintiff’s] vehicle were anchored to the vehicle body and contained buckles which close securely when utilized or tested.” Id. at 1047. Clearly, the above evidence does not rise to that level. See DeLong v. The Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The final judgment under review as to the plaintiff Dina Knapp is affirmed save for the 50% reduction in damages which is hereby stricken. The final judgment under review as to the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…nwright, 408 U.S. 941, 92 S.Ct. 2857, 33 L.Ed.2d 765 (1972); Joswick v. State, 458 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Our standard of review on this, as for other matters of trial procedure, is whether there was an abuse of discretion. Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990). Here, the trial court gave no reason for denial of defense counsel’s request, and we are thus unable to glean from the record any basis for the trial court’s ruling. Defense counsel appeare…
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1996)…r of district court decisions have also recognized that the seat belt defense may be appropriately analyzed as an issue of comparative negligence. See, e.g., First Southern Ins. Co. v. Block, 567 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990); Burns v. Smith, 476 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Meros & Chaisson, supra, at 12-14 (cases discussed therein). In Parker v. Montgomery, 529 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA), review d…
-
Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc. v. Curtis, 630 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1994)…district court’s decision to remand this cause for a new trial on both liability and damages conflicts with other district court decisions. See Smith v. Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc., 566 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990); DeLong v. Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Devolder v. Sand-age, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).2 For the reasons expressed, we quash the decision of the district court…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984)
- Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- DeLONG v. The Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Youngentob v. Allstate Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Devolder v. Sandage, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Allen v. Se-Go Indus., Inc., 510 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Strong v. MT. Dora Growers Coop., 495 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Radin v. Radin, 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Maleh v. Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc., 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Elwyn Bell, Jr. v. Harland Rayvals Transp., Ltd., 501 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)