Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 80-146
| Decision Date | 26 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-146,80-146 |
| Citation | 392 So.2d 11 |
| Parties | Sylvia MARTIN, as personal representative of the Estate of Robert Smith Martin, deceased, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, PublicService Car Leasing Co., Inc., a Maryland corporation, and Hardgrove SpoffordNorris, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Geoffrey B. Dobson, of Meredith, Dobson & Cushman, St. Augustine, for appellant.
Emory P. Cain, Jacksonville, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case in which a young boy was killed. The trial court allowed three errors to infect the trial and for that we must reverse the judgment and remand this case for retrial.
First, a juror was improperly impaneled over the plaintiff's challenge for cause after all preemptory challenges had been exhausted, the juror was employed at the hospital which processed the claim for insurance regarding the accident subject of this lawsuit. That juror was directly responsible for processing the claim. The claim was made against the same insurance company, a mutual company, which insured the juror. Additionally, and most seriously, the juror worked for the hospital of which the defendant doctor was the president, chief of staff, a member of the executive committee and a member of the board of directors. No matter how objective the juror might think she would be, it is unquestionable she would be less than objective about a case involving her employer, her hospital, her mutual insurance company and regarding an insurance claim she processed. Boca Teeca Corp. v. Palm Beach County, 291 So.2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Second, the court allowed in evidence statements made to an investigating police officer at the scene of the accident which were made by persons allegedly involved in the accident. Sec. 316.066(4), Fla.Stat. (1979); State v. Coffey, 212 So.2d 632 (Fla.1968); Wiggen v. Bethel Apostolic Temple, 192 So.2d 796 (Fla.3d DCA), quashed on other grounds, 200 So.2d 797 (Fla.1967).
Third, the trial court allowed highly improper, inflammatory and patently prejudicial remarks to be made to the jury by the defense lawyer. Some of the comments were objected to and some were not. For those which were objected to, we reverse. For the others, we display them for defense counsel to reflect upon.
And I say to Mrs. Martin, I'm sorry, and you're sorry, but you have got to put away sorrow. You don't buy a boy, as you would on the market. That's not what we are talking about.
Should you also ought to be sorry also for Dr. Norris?
Because Dr. Norris is in a place where he's having to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borden, Inc. v. Young, 84-1297
...v. Long, 412 So.2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Erie Ins. Co. v. Bushy, 394 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Martin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 392 So.2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).6 Indeed, this attitude does not elevate us even to the level of the boxing and Roman games parallels whic......
-
Russell, Inc. v. Trento, 82-1445
...412 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Erie Insurance Co. v. Bushy, 394 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Martin v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co., 392 So.2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). After reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law, we h......
-
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Geter
...v. Trento, 445 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Seshadri v. Morales, 412 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We find no merit in the balance of the points on appeal raised by the defendant Public Health Trust. Acc......
-
Newton v. South Florida Baptist Hosp., 92-00350
...by the Hospital's remarks. Improper statements in closing argument can provide grounds for a new trial. Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 So.2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA1980). The Hospital, however, contends that Newton's failure to request a mistrial constitutes a waiver of his objectio......