WALT DISNEY PARKS
v.
GRIMES
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.
Disney appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial based on improper closing arguments made by Disney's own counsel that were not objected to by the opposing parties. The appellate court reversed, holding that the improper arguments did not meet the high standard required under Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc. because they were curable through timely objection and jury instruction.
The court reversed the order granting a new trial, holding that Disney's improper closing arguments did not satisfy the Murphy standard because they were curable through a timely objection and curative jury instruction, and therefore did not rise to the level of fundamental error requiring a new trial.
[1] Unobjected-to improper closing arguments do not constitute fundamental error warranting a new trial if the arguments could have been cured by a timely objection followed…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDisney's counsel made improper arguments during closing statements in a trial involving Disney and the Grimeses. The Grimeses did not object to these …
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 Fundamental Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (“Disney”) appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for new trial filed by Troy Douglas Grimes and Tracey Grimes (“the Grimeses”) based upon certain arguments made by Disney’s counsel during closing and not objected to by the Grimeses. We reverse.
Disney’s arguments, while indeed improper, did not rise to the high standard delineated in Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1031 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court held in Murphy “that before a complaining party may receive a new trial based on [an] unobjected-to closing argument, the party must establish that the argument being challenged was improper, harmful, incurable, and so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public’s interest in our system of justice requires a new trial.” Id.; accord Companioni v. City of Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452, 456 (Fla. 2010) (holding that, if a party failed to object to an instance of attorney misconduct during trial, then the conduct is subject to a fundamental error analysis pursuant to Murphy). We hold that the impropriety in Disney’s closing arguments could have been cured by a timely objection, after which the trial court could have sustained the objection and issued a curative instruction to the jury. Therefore, the Grimeses failed to establish that “even if the trial court had sustained a timely objection to the improper argument and instructed the jury to disregard the improper argument, such curative measures could not have eliminated the probability that the unobjected-to argument resulted in an improper verdict.” Murphy, 766 So. 2d at 1030.
Because the Grimeses did not show that Disney’s arguments were incurable, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the public’s interest in our judicial system requires a new trial. See Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[I]f the complaining party fails to establish that the argument being challenged is improper, harmful, and incurable, then the analysis does not proceed to the last prong of this four-part test.” (emphasis added)). We reverse the order granting a new trial and remand the case for the trial court to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
REVERSED and REMANDED. SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Companioni v. City OF Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2010)
- Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)