MELANIE AND DAVID LAWRENCE, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
BEAULIEU GROUP, APPELLEE
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.
Melanie and David Lawrence, co-personal representatives of their father's estate, appealed a jury verdict in favor of Beaulieu Group in a negligence case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments regarding pretrial rulings, evidentiary issues, improper closing argument, and the denial of their motion for new trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its pretrial or evidentiary rulings. The plaintiffs' claim regarding improper closing argument lacks merit because they failed to object at trial or raise the issue in their motion for new trial, and the comments do not rise to fundamental error. The trial court properly denied the motion for new trial because the evidence was conflicting and the jury had a rational basis to find no negligence by Beaulieu Group.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in its pretrial rulings on motions in limine and evidentiary rulings during trial.
[2] A claim of improper closing argument is waived if the party fails to object at trial and fails to raise the claim in a motion for new trial, unless the comments constitut…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its pretrial rulings on the motions in limine and in its evidentiary rulings during trial.”
Establishes the appellate standard and affirms the trial court's discretionary evidentiary and pretrial rulings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorvil Lawrence died, and his co-personal representatives sued Beaulieu Group for negligence. The case proceeded to trial with contested evidence rega…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants/Plaintiffs, Melanie and David Lawrence, co-personal representatives of the estate of Dorvil Lawrence, file this appeal following a jury verdict, and final judgment, in favor of Appellee/Defendant Beaulieu Group, and the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. Plaintiffs raise numerous claims, including pretrial rulings on motions in limine, evi-dentiary rulings during trial, improper closing argument, and an assertion that a new trial should have been granted because the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Having reviewed the entire record below, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its pretrial rulings on the motions in limine and in its evidentiary rulings during trial. See Jimenez v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 458 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Further, Plaintiffs failed to object at trial to those portions of the closing argument they now assert were improper, and failed to raise this claim in their motion for new trial. Even if we were to conclude these comments were improper, they do not, individually or cumulatively, rise to the level of fundamental error, rendering this claim without merit. See Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000).
Finally, the trial court determined that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence, and upon our review we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So.3d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). In order to determine that a trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial, the evidence must be clear and obvious, and not conflicting. Id. at 805 (citing Dewitt v. Maruhachi Ceramics of Am., Inc., 770 So.2d 709, 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). Here, the case was vigorously contested and the evidence presented was in conflict. Weighing the evidence and resolving those conflicts is within the province of the jury. There was a rational basis in the evidence to support the jury’s determination that there was no negligence on the part of Beaulieu Group which was a legal cause of the death of Dorvil Lawrence. Therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Jimenez v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 458 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Dewitt v. Maruhachi Ceramics OF Am., Inc., 770 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Robenson v. McNEIL, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)