Saxon v. Chacon
| Decision Date | 28 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2298,87-2298 |
| Citation | 539 So.2d 11,14 Fla. L. Weekly 566 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 566 Martin SAXON and Barbara Saxon, Appellants, v. Robert CHACON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Merritt & Sikes, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin, and Linda G. Katsin and Sharon Wolfe, Miami, for appellants.
Goldfarb & Gold, Magill & Lewis, and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendants Martin and Barbara Saxon from a new trial order entered below in favor of the plaintiff Robert Chacon after the jury returned a defense verdict in a negligence action arising from a traffic accident. The basis for the new trial order was the trial court's conclusion that it had erroneously admitted at trial certain evidence, over objection, tending to establish (a) the plaintiff's homosexuality, and (b) the AIDS medical epidemic in the country.
We would ordinarily affirm the trial court's new trial order based on this evidentiary error, see Roby v. Kingsley, 492 So.2d 789, 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), except for the fact that counsel for plaintiff expressly refused to move for a mistrial based on said error after the trial court invited him to do so, indicating that it was favorably inclined to granting such a motion. The trial court expressed its misgivings toward the end of the trial concerning its admission of the above evidence and told plaintiff's counsel, "If you want a mistrial, I'll consider granting one"; plaintiff's counsel replied, Obviously, counsel for plaintiff wanted to take his chances with the jury on the state of the evidence adduced below; having gambled and lost when the jury returned an adverse verdict, he cannot now be heard to ask belatedly for a new trial based on the erroneous admission of the above evidence. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Nadler v. Home Ins. Co., 339 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The new trial order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the defendants based on the jury verdict returned below.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. Gonzalez
...See, e.g., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Native Hammock Nursery, Inc., 698 So.2d 267, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). As stated in Saxon: Obviously, counsel for plaintiff [who had refused t......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hinchey
...cannot now be heard to ask belatedly for a new trial based on the erroneous admission of the above evidence." Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Finally, it is an abuse of discretion to order a new trial where ample evidence exists supporting a jury's verdict. See Tuttle v. M......
-
MCI Exp., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 3D00-3420.
...and would not agree to reserve ruling then it would not move for a mistrial. Ford analogizes this situation to that in Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), claiming that MCI wanted to take its chances with the jury and could not thereafter move for a mistrial. In Saxon, however......
-
Salazar v. Gomez
..."gambled and lost," as the jury returned a verdict in favor of Salazar despite the alleged inconsistencies. See id.; Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). "That [the defendant's] strategy backfired neither requires nor permits the court to allow [him] a new trial." KMart, 7......