Knoizen v. Bruegger
| Decision Date | 10 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2080,97-2080 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1641 Frances Thompson KNOIZEN, Appellant, v. Jenina M. BRUEGGER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary L. Sanders of Pattillo, McKeever & Bice, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant.
Roger B. Butcher and Gus R. Benitez of Benitez & Butcher, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
Frances Thompson Knoizen appeals a final order denying her motion for new trial following a verdict for Jenina M. Bruegger in a personal injury case. Knoizen raises several issues on appeal, only one of which is discussed as the others have no merit. We affirm.
Bruegger was severely injured when her motorcycle collided head-on with the Knoizen's car. The medical evidence presented during the trial established that Bruegger was severely injured. After the accident, Bruegger's bladder was lying in the sand. She suffered an open book pelvis injury and five major pelvic fractures. As a result of the accident, she also sustained a very extensive vaginal laceration. Bones protruded into her skin and into the vaginal wound. Other injuries included a broken femur and an open wrist fracture. She lost physical support for her bladder, and her bladder and uterus are prolapsed.
Knoizen contends on appeal that the trial court erred during Bruegger's closing argument by allowing her attorney to make reference to damages sustained by her children and family. During closing argument, Bruegger's attorney stated And now she's sitting here damaged for life with the most devastating injury a woman can suffer. Devastating to her, devastating to her family, to her kids, devastating to everybody that knows her and cares for her. Devastating.
* * *
Please don't leave her alone to deal with that. Don't leave her bare and naked, like this accident has already left her, and her children and her family. Don't leave her like that.
Knoizen timely objected and was overruled. Knoizen argues that the closing argument was an improper attempt to invoke jury sympathy to inflate the recovery of damages, and that it went well beyond the scope of the evidence and issues presented. Moreover, she urges, the argument was an attempt to inflame the passions of the jury. See School Bd. of Palm Beach County v. Taylor, 365 So.2d 1044, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (). Accord Russell, Inc. v. Trento, 445 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We disagree. To warrant reversal on the ground that a closing argument was an improper appeal to the jury's emotions, the argument must be "highly and patently prejudicial." Erie Ins. Co. v. Bushy, 394 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Here, the closing argument is supported by the facts. Bruegger is 34 years old and the mother of six minor children. Before the accident, she was involved in weight lifting, karate, and aerobics, and actively played with her children. Two of her children testified that since the accident she experiences pain and tires quickly when she tries to play with them. Further, she is unable to do household chores.
When reviewed in light of the serious and debilitating injuries, and the testimony from family members about the substantial changes in her life, we find the closing argument only marginally objectionable. Attorneys are given broad latitude during closing, but they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clavelle v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-781-J-39PDB
...comments were so pervasive, inflammatory, and prejudicial to preclude the jury's rational thinking of the case. Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). That was not the case as this particular argument was not the focus of the prosecutor's closing argument. Finally, t......
-
Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.
...argument to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence." Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Venning v. Roe, 616 So.2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Moreover, closing argument must not be used to "inflame......
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schleider
...from the facts and evidence.’ " Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1028 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ). Plaintiffs' counsel's comments during his closing argument in this case may be considered to be close to the limits ......
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Neff
...to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence." Knoizen v. Bruegger , 713 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ; see also Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Moreover, closing argument must not be used to "inflame the ......
-
Avoiding pitfalls in closing arguments.
...to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence.") (quoting Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (2) Rule 4-3.4(e) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar states: "A lawyer shall not ... in trial, allude to any ma......