Anderson v. Watson, 89-01292
| Citation | 559 So.2d 654 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-01292,89-01292 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D741 Lauren Frank ANDERSON, Misener Marine Construction Company and International Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Donald E. WATSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael S. Rywant of Rywant & Alvarez, P.A., Tampa, for appellant Lauren Frank Anderson.
Thomas J. Roehn of Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A., Tampa, for appellants Misener Marine Const. Co. and Intern. Ins. Co.
E.B. Rood of Rood & Associates, Tampa, for appellee.
We reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial in this personal injury case which arose out of an automobile accident.
The trial court's basis for granting a new trial was that "the cumulative effect of some improper comments of defendants' counsel during trial and in final argument concerning the plaintiff's earlier DUI conviction, the so-called "MARY CARTER" agreement, and their personal opinions as to the creditability of witnesses, combined with judicial error of the court to preclude a fair trial for the plaintiff." It is clear, especially from the lack of reference in the order to any particular error of the trial court at trial and from the arguments on appeal, that the trial court's central concern was with the comments of defendants' counsel.
Because there was no objection by plaintiff's counsel to any of the comments, errors in permitting the comments to stand must have met one of two requirements in order to justify a new trial. They must have been so fundamental as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial or their collective import must have been so extensive as to pervade the trial and gravely impair a calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence and the merits by the jury. Gregory v. Seaboard System R.R., Inc., 484 So.2d 35, 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 474 So.2d 825, 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
After careful consideration in light of the principles expressed in Gregory and Wasden, we conclude that the comments of defense counsel with which the trial court in this case was concerned met neither of those requirements. No useful purpose would be served by our embarking here upon a lengthy factual and legal analysis of the comments in the context of the entire five day trial, as the briefs of the parties have done. Any such analysis would do little more than return again and again to the controlling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. State
...See Hernandez v. Feliciano, 890 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); DeFreitas v. State, 701 So.2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Anderson v. Watson, 559 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA The defense and the majority cite to a wide-ranging list of cases in which evidence of abortion or thoughts of abortion was fo......
-
Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A.
...court's order did not find verdict was against manifest weight of evidence), review denied, 492 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1986); Anderson v. Watson, 559 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Upon further consideration, it appears more accurate to state that the two exceptions described in Wasden are one exce......
-
Manhardt v. Tamton
...99, 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (quoting Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. Strickland, 88 So.2d 519, 523 (Fla. 1956)); see also Anderson v. Watson, 559 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Therefore, based on the foregoing, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Ms. Manhardt ......
-
Stephenson v. State, No. 3D08-1107 (Fla. App. 3/3/2010)
...Hernandez v. Feliciano, 890 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); DeFreitas v. State, 701 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Anderson v. Watson, 559 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA The defense and the majority cite to a wide-ranging list of cases in which evidence of abortion or thoughts of abortion was fou......