LARRY GENE TURNER, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT OF KIN, LOUISE GIBBS, AND LOUISE GIBBS, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. A. LONG, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting an amendment to the answer after evidence was closed and in denying a motion for a new trial based on counsel's summation remarks.
Appellants appealed an adverse jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. They challenged the trial court's decision to allow the appellee to amend t…
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 Amendment Of Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants have appealed an adverse final judgment in a medical malpractice case based upon a jury verdict in favor of appellee.
Appellants’ first point challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling which permitted appellee to amend his answer after the evidence was closed by interposing the defense of contributory negligence pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.190(b), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. Our Supreme Court has been extremely liberal. in permitting amendments after trial to conform to the evidence when the issue has been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties.1
Appellants’ second point on appeal challenges the trial court’s order denying their motion for new trial which is predicated upon the contention that the jury was confused and prejudiced by the inflammatory and unjustifiable remarks made by ap-pellee’s counsel in his summation to the jury. Again in this field of the law our Supreme Court has experienced difficulty in detecting any language by counsel in their summation which would warrant a new trial. A wide latitude has been accorded competing advocates in this phase of the trial.2
The able trial judge considered the grounds of both of appellants’ points on appeal in connection with their motion for new trial, and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him concluded that no valid grounds existed which required a re-litigation of the cause. Such discretion will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse.3 The judgment appealed is affirmed.
CAROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Connell, 299 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…ught after trial to amend the pleadings to conform with the evidence, nor does it involve an amendment to frame the pleadings to coincide with the issues on which the case was actually tried as was the situation in Turner v. Long, Fla.App. 1st 1969, 225 So. 2d 434. In the case sub judice the plaintiffs, ignoring admonitions and suggestions of the trial judge, without objections by defendants, made a binding election to proceed without amendment. Having done so, gone to trial, rested and lost on their theory…
-
Maytag v. Alfred D. Reid Assocs., 360 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. McNayr v. Cranbrook Investments, Inc., 158 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla.1963); Turner v. Long, 225 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Clutter Construction Co. v. Naples Builders Supply Co., 166 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Lee County Oil Co. v. Marshall, 98 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957).…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Tyus v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1961)
- Apalachicola N. R.R. Co. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Garrett v. OAK Hall Club, 118 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1960)
- Garrett v. OAK Hall Club, 112 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)