RICHARD LIONEL SEGUIN AND ELEANOR SEGUIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAUSER MOTOR COMPANY, HAUSER DODGE LEASING CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, DONALD PAGE AND BROOKS H. BERRIE, 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.
Plaintiffs appealed from a jury verdict in their favor for defendants in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to give requested jury instructions on the plaintiffs' legal theories and by allowing defense counsel to express his personal opinion regarding a witness's credibility during closing argument.
Yes on both issues. The trial court erred in failing to give the requested jury instructions, as each party is entitled to have the jury instructed on their theory of the case, and the vicarious liability instruction was essential for defendant Hauser Motor Co. to be found liable. The trial court also erred in allowing defense counsel to express his personal opinion as to witness credibility, which violates professional responsibility standards and renders jury verdicts impermissible.
[1] A party is entitled to have the jury instructed upon their theory of the case.
[2] A jury instruction on vicarious liability must be given if it is the only basis upon which a defendant could be found liable.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“each party is entitled to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts must give requested jury instructions on a party's legal theories
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a personal injury action involving plaintiffs Richard Lionel Seguin and Eleanor Seguin against Hauser Motor Company, Hauser Dodge Leasing Cor…
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 Vicarious Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1090] PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, and from the denial of their motion for new trial in a personal injury action. We hold that the trial court erred first in failing to give plaintiffs’ additional requested jury instructions, and second by allowing defense counsel to inject into the case his own personal credibility.
On the first issue, it is axiomatic that each party is entitled to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case. Sea Ledge Properties, Inc. v. Dodge, 283 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Without the requested instructions defining the rights of a lien claimant, the plaintiffs’ theory of the case was left partially unexpressed. The requested instruction on vicarious liability should also have been given because it was only on this basis that the defendant Hau-ser Motor Co. could have been found liable.
On the second issue, it is also axiomatic that the expression by a lawyer of his personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness is not a proper subject for argument to the trier of fact. Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7, E.C. 7-24, D.R.7-106. Defense counsel as part of his closing argument to the jury said:
. I am an officer of the Court. If I lie to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, they would take my license away, and the practice of law and justice means too much to me and I tell you this; yes, Mr. Berrie was telling the truth. He told me that. He said, “That fellow, I knew him, he was limping long before this accident occurred. I can’t remember which leg it was. He had a limp and they called him, ‘the Penguin.’ I don’t know why. I always assumed it was by reason of the limp he had,” and that was what the man told me.
This was an expression by defense counsel of his personal opinion as to the credibility of the witness, and was improper. As stated by the Supreme Court in Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Corbin, 62 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1952):
Verdicts rendered by a jury, after having heard such incompetent testimony from an attorney and such highly prejudicial remarks, under the circumstances as shown by this case, cannot be permitted to stand.
We have considered the other two points raised by appellants and find them to be without merit. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and DAUKSCH and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Maynard Nelson and Myrtle Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…oper, were by no means identical and there was no motion for a mistrial. We are distressed at an increasing tendency, by the trial bar, to permit the noble art of trial practice to degenerate into a free-for-all. See Seguin v. Hauser Motor Company, 350 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and Levin v. Hanks, 356 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However, while all judges are required by judicial dictates to exercise control over a trial, absent proper [*362] objections, neither trial, nor appellate judges, can be ex…
-
Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1986); Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 474 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1986); Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Seguin v. Hauser Motor Co., 350 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Miami Coin-O-Wash, Inc. v. McGough, 195 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). In Miami Coin-O-Wash v. McGough, the court stated: An attorney should not assert in argument his personal belief in his client nor in the justice of his cau…
-
Albertson's, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…l Skating Centers, Inc. v. Martin, 448 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (reversal required where plaintiff’s closing argument characterized defendants as despicable and asserted that both they and their lawyers were liars); Sequin v. Hauser Motor Co., 350 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (defense counsel supported his statement of belief in the witness with his license to practice law). Here, the remarks, although improper, were not highly prejudicial nor inflammatory and, thus, are not a proper basis to order a…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Corbin, 62 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1952)
- SEA Ledge Props., Inc. v. Dodge, 283 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)