ERNEST RIDARSICK, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGIANNA AMIRKANIAN, A WIDOW, 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.
In this wrongful death case, the trial court set aside a jury verdict for the defendant and ordered a new trial, finding that prejudicial questions were posed to the jury even though the answers were excluded. The appellate court affirmed the new trial order, holding that questions can convey prejudicial information regardless of whether answers are admitted.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. Although questions that convey prejudicial information can warrant a new trial even when answers are excluded, and the defendant's attorney was not guilty of misconduct, the questions posed had the obvious purpose of prejudicing the plaintiff's case before the jury.
“A question asked during a trial may convey prejudicial information even though the answer is excluded.”
Establishes the legal principle that trial courts may grant new trials based on prejudicial questions regardless of whether answers are admitted into evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's husband was struck and killed on a public street by an automobile driven by the defendant. A jury verdict was rendered in favor of the…
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action for damages by a widow under the wrongful death statute.1 Her husband was struck and killed on a public street by an automobile admittedly driven by the defendant. A verdict for the defendant was set aside and a new trial ordered. A ground of the motion for new trial, adopted in the order, implied that defendant’s attorney at the trial was guilty of misconduct by repeatedly offering evidence which the ■ court had ruled out. That implication is not supported by the record which discloses defendant’s attorney was courteous to the court and obedient to the court’s rulings. However, a question asked during a trial may convey prejudicial information even though the answer is excluded. See Blanton v. Butler, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 745; 66 C.J.S. New Trial, § 35. The matter which was sought to be elicited was properly recognized by the trial judge as irrelevant and immaterial. How plaintiff’s attorneys of record obtained the representation was not relevant or material in the trial of the case and had no bearing on the validity of the plaintiff’s action. This wrongful death case presented no basis to suggest a *581false claim or exaggerated injuries. However, the obvious purpose of the questions involved was to prejudice plaintiff’s case in the eyes of the jurors. The order granting new trial stated the judge felt “that matters extraneous to the issues to be tried * * * were put before the jury * * which may have improperly influenced and prejudiced this jury * * The reason assigned by the trial judge in the instant case was a sufficient ground upon which to grant a new trial. Florida Publishing Co. v. Copeland, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 18; Pyms v. Meranda, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 341; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669. A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Mead v. Bentley, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 428; Pyms v. Meranda, supra; Cloud v. Fallís, supra. No abuse of discretion having been shown, the order for new trial is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Manhardt v. Shameem Tamton, M.D., Susan W. Short Pediatrics, P.A., 832 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…t that time, counsel gratuitously announced and otherwise emphasized that this was Dr. Tamton’s first lawsuit. Defense commentary of that nature is usually intended to prejudice a plaintiffs case in the eyes of the jury. See Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, 147 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (involving counsel’s misconduct in repeatedly offering evidence that the trial court had already excluded). That is especially true here, given the trial court’s instruction prohibiting the mention of prior lawsuits. Untoward…
-
Eli Gatlin v. Jacobs Constr. Co., 218 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…gument was not objected to, and further, in such case, it was not necessary to decide whether or not such remarks resulted in an excessive verdict. Carlton v. Johns, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 670. In the case of Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 580, the trial judge found “that matters extraneous to the issues to be tried * * * were put before the jury * * * which may have improperly influenced and prejudiced this jury * * (Emphasis added.) The appellate court held that this stated a sufficient…
-
Joao Luis Lopes v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…f Greater Miami v. Steiner, 426 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Detroit Marine Eng’g, Inc. v. Malory, 419 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sears v. Rutishauser, 102 Ill.2d 402, 80 Ill.Dec. 758, 466 N.E. 2d 210 (1984); compare Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, 147 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Pyms v. Meranda, 98 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1957)
- Fla. Publ'g Co. v. Copeland, 89 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1956)
- Mead v. Bentley, 61 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1952)
- Blanton v. Butler, 81 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1955)