CORAL GABLES HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE S. ZABALA AND GRIZELL ZABALA, HIS WIFE, 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.
The court held that the plaintiffs' counsel's "golden rule" argument was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal.
A patient suffered an infection due to negligent IV care at Coral Gables Hospital, resulting in a jury award of $125,000 for pain and suffering. The p…
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 Prejudicial Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Coral Gables Hospital brings this appeal from an adverse judgment in a medical malpractice action. The hospital contends that counsel for the plaintiffs made a highly prejudicial “golden rule” argument which caused the jury to return an excessive verdict.
Mr. Zabala was admitted to Coral Gables Hospital complaining of fever and general malaise. The attending physician ordered intravenous feeding (IV) to facilitate the patient’s intake of vital nutriente. Hospital employees’ negligent failure to change the IV needle within forty-eight hours, as required by hospital procedures, caused an infection at the insertion site. On discovering the infection the treating physician administered antibiotics. Mr. Zabala recovered fully within ten days with no permanent injury. The Zabalas sued the hospital obtaining a jury award of $125,000 for pain and suffering.
In closing argument the plaintiffs’ attorney asked the jurors, in effect, to place themselves in the plaintiffs’ position and urged them to award an amount of money they would desire if they had been the victims. The remark was an improper “golden rule” argument — an attempt to undermine the neutrality of the jury by asking its members to identify with the plaintiff and make a determination from a personal perspective. Reversal is often required in the face of such an argument, National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“golden rule” violation constitutes reversible error), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1983); Klein v. Herring, 347 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (prejudicial remarks asking jury to put itself in plaintiffs’ position mandate new trial), and is required in this case.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SDG Dadeland Assocs., Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…proper Golden Rule argument. A “Golden1 Rule” argument asks the jurors “to place themselves in the plaintiffs’ position and urge[s] them to award an amount of money they would desire if they had been the victims.” Coral Gables Hosp., Inc. v. Zabala, 520 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Such arguments constitute reversible error, if a contemporaneous objection is made, because they strike at the very heart of our justice system: It is hard to conceive of anything that would more quickly destroy the structure of…
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ledoux, 230 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…violation of the Golden Rule. A Golden Rule argument .asks the jurors “to place themselves in the plaintiffs’ position and urge[s] them to award an amount of money they would desire if they had been the victims.” Coral Gables Hosp., Inc. v. Zabala, 520 So. 2d 653, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “[A] golden rule argument '... is impermissible because it encourages the jurors to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.” Metro. Dade Cty. v. Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fl…
-
Cira Porta and her husband v. Arango, 588 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…delivered. That being so, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the remark did not rise to the level of violating the prohibition on “golden rule” argument. See generally Coral Gables Hospital, Inc. v. Zabala, 520 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The motion for new trial was properly denied on that basis, and was properly denied on the basis of the Portas’ alternative argument as well. Accordingly, we affirm. As to the cross-appeal, we also affirm.…
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Klein v. Herring, 347 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)