OSVALDO PADRINO AND VIOLETA PADRINO, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRIET G. RESNICK, 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 appellate court reversed a jury verdict for the Padrinos in a personal injury case, finding that defense counsel's closing argument improperly urged the jury to consider the financial burden on the elderly defendant rather than focusing on the evidence, thereby rendering the verdict contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
The jury verdict was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial because the defense counsel's closing argument was blatantly prejudicial, improperly inviting the jury to consider the financial burden on the elderly defendant rather than the merits of the case, and the verdict's denial of damages was explainable only as an impact of this prejudicial argument.
[1] An argument imploring the jury to consider the financial burden a verdict would have on an individual defendant, when the damage award would be paid by an insurer, is bla…
[2] A jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence when it is explainable only as an impact of a prejudicial argument made by defense counsel.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an argument which implored the jury to consider the financial burden a verdict for the plaintiff would have on the individual defendant, where the damage award would be paid by the insurer, was blatantly prejudicial”
Establishes the legal standard that such arguments constitute reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsvaldo Padrino, age 66, suffered multiple fractures of both legs and one arm when his disabled vehicle was struck by defendant Harriet Resnick's auto…
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 Future Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
On the main issue presented, this case is factually indistinguishable from Ballard v. American Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1989), where we held that an argument which implored the jury to consider the financial burden a verdict for the plaintiff would have on the individual defendant, where the damage award would be paid by the insurer, was blatantly prejudicial. The defense stratagem was formulated, obviously, to capitalize on a juror’s improper concern and inquiry as to who would pay for any damages awarded to the plaintiffs.1 Mr. Padrino, who was sixty-six years of age, suffered multiple fractures of both legs and one arm when his disabled vehicle was struck by the defendant’s automobile on a busy expressway. There was evidence that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent in bringing his auto to a stop in a lane of moving traffic and attempting to repair the condition instead of steering the automobile off the roadway or moving away from the dangerous condition.
Nevertheless, the jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Oakwood Hills Co. v. Horacio Toledo, Inc., 599 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Particularly, the denial of future medical benefits to Mr. Padrino and the denial of an award for future loss of consortium to Mrs. Padrino, are explainable only as an impact of the prejudicial argument.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues.
. A juror submitted the following question: "What is the financial status of both parties)?] How much, if any, is or was covered by insurance)?] Was there insurance)?] In response, the court instructed the jury: "Whether or not insurance coverage exists or does not exist is not a matter for your consideration.” In closing defense counsel argued:
"This is serious stuff. And it is serious to [Resnick], because nobody mentioned that this is her golden years. Nobody mentioned that this is her retirement. Nobody mentioned she worked all her life to be able to retire. And nobody mentioned what this kind of money would do to her, nobody mentioned that."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Samuels v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…o be irrelevant to the issue of compensatory damages in a personal injury case based on negligence, highly prejudicial because it diverts the jury from a fair assessment of damages, and a basis for reversal. Hollenbeck; Revuelta; Padrino v. Resnick, 615 So. 2d 698, 698-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Batlemento; Ballard v. Am. Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1018, 1020 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Sossa v. Newman, 647 So. 2d 1018, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). When counsel for Torres revealed the meager income of…
-
Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 718 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…d against Edwards because of the irrelevant and inad-missable evidence that Orkin introduced. See Porter v. Vista Bldg. Maintenance Servs., Inc., 630 So. 2d 205, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1994); Padrino v. Resnick, 615 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Ballard v. American Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1018, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1989). Thus, we remand this case for a new trial on the issue of damages. We reverse the directed verdic…
-
Hollenbeck v. Hooks, 993 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…motion for new trial. Counsel’s misleading statement implied that an award of damages would be paid solely by the individual and was nothing less than an appeal to the jury to protect that individual from a harmful verdict. See Padrino v. Resnick, 615 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As the trial court noted, a jury trial must be focused solely on the merits of the case, and it is not appropriate to appeal to a jury’s sympathy; appeals to sympathy and attempts to inject a party’s wealth, or lack thereof, are…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ballard v. Am. Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Oakwood Hills Co. v. Horacio Toledo, Inc., 599 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)