BAKERY ASSOCIATES, LTD. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CHANTAL RIGAUD AND ROBERT RIGAUD, HER HUSBAND, 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 Mall appealed a trial court's grant of a motion for new trial based on allegedly improper comments made during defense counsel's closing argument. The appellate court reversed, holding that while some comments were improper, they were not sufficiently prejudicial and inflammatory to warrant a new trial.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for new trial. While defense counsel did make improper comments during closing argument, the comments were not highly prejudicial and inflammatory and therefore did not deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial or warrant a new trial.
[1] Improper comments made during closing argument do not warrant a new trial unless they are highly prejudicial and inflammatory.
[2] A new trial should be granted based on counsel's closing arguments only when the arguments are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deny the opposing party a fair tr…
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“Improper comments made during closing argument will not serve as a basis for the granting of a new trial unless the improper comments are highly prejudicial and inflammatory.”
Establishes the legal standard for when improper closing argument comments justify a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring closing arguments in a negligence case, defense counsel made several comments that plaintiffs' counsel objected to as improper. The trial court…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The defendants, Bakery Associates, Ltd., et al. (collectively referred to as “the Mall”), appeal an order granting a motion for new trial in favor of the plaintiffs, Chantal Rigaud and Robert Rigaud, based on improper comments made during defense counsel’s closing argument. We reverse.
Plaintiffs’ counsel made several objections during defense counsel’s closing statement arguing that the comments were improper. One objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard defense counsel’s comment. The other objections, however, were overruled. Following closing arguments, plaintiffs’ counsel moved for a mistrial based on these allegedly improper comments. The trial court reserved ruling.
On Mrs. Rigaud’s negligence claim, the jury returned its verdict awarding $10,000.00 in damages, finding that Mrs. Rigaud was 85% at fault and that the Mall was 15% at fault. The jury, however, found in favor of the Mall on Mr. Rigaud’s claim for loss of consortium.
The plaintiffs filed a Motion for New Trial and Renewed Motion for Mistrial arguing that the allegedly improper comments were harmful and prejudicial. The trial court granted the motion for new trial.
The Mall contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the iriotion for new trial. We agree.
Improper comments made during closing argument will not serve as a basis for the granting of a new trial unless the improper comments are highly prejudicial and inflammatory. See Maksad v. Kaskel, 832 So. 2d 788, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“Generally, a mistrial or new trial should be granted only when counsel’s arguments are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deny the opposing party a fair trial.”); Leyva v. Samess, 732 So. 2d 1118, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that a motion for new trial based upon improper comments made during closing argument may only be granted when the comments are highly prejudicial and inflammatory); Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (disapproved of on other grounds by Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.2000))(holding that party moving for new trial based on improper comments made during closing argument must demonstrate that comments were highly prejudicial and inflammatory).
While defense counsel did make improper comments during closing argument, the record demonstrates that the comments were not highly prejudicial and inflammatory, and we conclude that the comments did not deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a final judgment in conformity with the jury’s verdict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The LAS Olas Holding Co. v. Demella, 228 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…s remarks during opening and closing arguments., “Generally, a mistrial or new trial should be granted only when counsel’s arguments are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deny the opposing party a fair trial.” Bakery Assocs., Ltd. v. Rigaud, 906 So. 2d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Maksad v. Kaskel, 832 So. 2d 788, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). When assessing the comments, “[c]ontext is crucial. To determine whether the challenged statements and arguments were in fact prejudicial, the statements ca…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Neff, 325 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…erated by this court. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 2 Las Olas Holding Co. v. Demella, 228 So. 3d 97, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Bakery Assocs., Ltd. v. Rigaud, 906 So. 2d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). 3 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).…
-
Vickers v. Thomas, 237 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ts were not so highly prejudicial and inflammatory as to deny Vickers a fair trial. The trial court's failure to give the curative instruction was harmless on the facts of this case.4 See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2011) ; Bakery Assocs., Ltd. v. Rigaud, 906 So. 2d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We note that this trial occurred before our opinion in Rasinski issued. Thomas's counsel's closing arguments have gathered the attention of this Court and if they continue, should gather the attention of trial courts as wel…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Hagan v. SUN Bank OF Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Ali Maksad and Ann Knowles Maksad v. Stewart M. Kaskel, M.D., 832 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Leyva v. Samess, 732 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)