PAULINA MONZON, ETC.
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and Monzón failed to demonstrate fundamental error warranting reversal.
[1] Appellate review of a trial court's evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion.
[2] A legal ground for a claim must be raised at trial to be heard on appeal; a different claim will not be considered.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaulina Monzón, as personal representative of Alfredo Monzón's estate, appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial in an action ag…
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 Prejudicial Error In Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 31, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1619 Lower Tribunal No. 08-110
________________
Paulina Monzón, etc.,
Appellant,
vs. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge. Parafinczuk & Wolf, P.A., Justin Parafinczuk and Austin Carr (Boca Raton); Menendez Trial Attorneys, and Jose Menendez; Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Bard D. Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, Geoffrey J. Michael and Frank Cruz-Alvarez (Washington, D.C.); Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, and Michael G. Polatsek; Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Scott A. Chesin and Michael Rayfield (New York, N.Y.), for appellee Philip Morris USA Inc. Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. GORDO, J. Paulina Monzón (“Monzón”), as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfredo Monzón, appeals the final judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no error in the trial court’s rulings, we affirm. “Our standard of review on a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux, 230 So. 3d 530, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). “It is well settled in Florida that to be preserved for appeal, ‘the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial and a claim different than that will not be heard on appeal.’” Fleitas v. State, 3 So. 3d 351, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493, 499 (Fla. 1992)). “An unpreserved challenge to evidence is reviewed on appeal for fundamental error.” Hayes v. State, 276 So. 3d 950, 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Fundamental error “goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998). Fundamental error will be found “only in the rare cases where a jurisdictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its application.” Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 1981). In this case, Monzón has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion or fundamental error.
Further, “[a] trial court’s decision on jury instructions is reviewed for abuse of discretion and ‘should not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of prejudicial error.’” Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)). We find no such error here. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wal-Mart Stores E., LP v. Wynn (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avila (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…5, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)); Zwinge v. Hettinger, 530 So. 2d 318, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“A jury has the power to accept or reject the testimony of expert witnesses and are not bound by their conclusions.”); Monzón v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 388 So. 3d 930, 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[A] trial court’s decision on jury instructions is reviewed for abuse of discretion and should not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of prejudicial error.”) (quoting Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So.…
-
Edmond Weeks and Tamara Casey v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1992)
- J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1998)
- Fleitas v. State, 3 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux, 230 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Int'l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Hayes v. State, 276 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)