FULGENCIO PADILLA, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD BUELL, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2001-09-26
No. 3D00-3226
Before LEVY, GREEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.
797 So. 2d 609 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a defense verdict in a property negligence action. The plaintiff abandoned his motion for new trial without having it heard, and thus seeks to overturn the jury’s verdict.

We find that the failure of plaintiffs counsel to object with specificity to defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument waived any error that might have occurred. See Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 710 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, the implied reference to insurance matters in this case was not fundamental error requiring reversal. See Melara v. Cicione, 712 So. 2d 429, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Therefore, we affirm.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Jones, 232 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
    …ahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). The trial court’s evi-dentiary rulings and denial of a motion for a new trial are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803, 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Padilla v. Buell, 797 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We begin with the general principle in premises liability,cases that “[a]ll premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition.” Owens v. Publix Supermarkets,…
  • Gonzalez v. City OF Hollywood, 805 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
    …ause defendant was never properly served, he did not have to demonstrate a meritorious defense in order to have the judgment set aside. Ubilla v. L. & W. Supply, 637 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Ocean Bank v. Save Import and Export, Inc., 797 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The defendant argues that he is entitled at this point to have judgment entered in his favor, and to have the funds returned to him. He contends that this relief is required because (a) the City sent the notice of seizure to an…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw