YAAKOV BRAFMAN AND VALUE RENT-A-CAR, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
VICTOR RYBALKA AND CAROL RYBALKA, APPELLEES
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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on defense counsel's inflammatory closing argument.
Defendants in a personal injury action appeal an order granting a new trial due to defense counsel's closing argument. The defense counsel made inflam…
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 Inflammatory Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants in a personal injury action appeal from an order granting a new trial based upon defense counsel’s closing argument. We affirm.
“[T]he appropriate standard for district courts on review of a trial court’s motion granting a new trial ... is whether the trial court abused its ‘broad discretion.’ If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then there is no abuse of discretion.” Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla.1981). We find no such abuse of discretion in this case. The comments made by defense counsel in his closing argument were so inflammatory and offensive that we decline to repeat them here and memorialize them in the annals of reported decisions; they were “so prejudicial as to be incapable of cure by rebuke or retraction-” Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1986).
Although the transcript is not entirely clear as to whether plaintiff actually asked the trial court to reserve ruling on a motion for mistrial based upon defense counsel’s improper closing remarks, the record is replete with plaintiffs objections to the remarks.1 Those objections were sufficient to support plaintiffs post-trial motion for a new trial. See Martino v. Metropolitan Dade County, 655 So. 2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (even in absence of contemporaneous objections to improper remarks in closing argument, cumulative effect of improper and prejudicial comments rises to level of fundamental error); Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d at 851 (same).
AFFIRMED.
. The trial court admonished counsel not to make further contemporaneous objections during closing arguments, and to save them for the end of the arguments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dewitt v. Maruhachi Ceramics OF Am., Inc., 770 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…trial court on motion for a new trial.1 Rather, the appellate court is limited to considering whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial. Clough v. Christopher, 711 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Brafman v. Rybalka, 673 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1985). In order for us to reach that conclusion, the evidence must be clear and obvious, and not conflicting, as in this case. The DeWitts argue that much of Suzuki’s test…
-
Robson B. Werneck v. Annamarie Worrall, 918 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…an issue. Although a trial court has considerable discretion on motions for mistrial or new trial, when reasonable men cannot differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, the trial court cannot be affirmed. Brafman v. Rybalka, 673 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). When we consider the cumulative effect of the improper arguments after viewing the entire record, we conclude that the lower court did abuse its discretion and that justice requires a new trial on damages to cure the resulti…
Authorities Cited
- Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1981)
- Martino v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 655 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)