WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
TROY DOUGLAS GRIMES AND TRACEY GRIMES, 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.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial based on improper closing arguments by Disney's counsel that were not objected to at trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, reversed, holding that while Disney's arguments were improper, they did not meet the high standard required for a new trial because they were curable by timely objection and jury instruction.
The court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial, holding that Disney's improper arguments did not rise to the high standard required because they were curable through timely objection and curative jury instruction, and the Grimeses therefore failed to establish that the arguments were incurable.
[1] A new trial based on unobjected-to closing argument requires the complaining party to establish that the argument was improper, harmful, incurable, and so damaged the fai…
[2] If a party fails to object to attorney misconduct during trial, the conduct is subject to a fundamental error analysis.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“before a complaining party may receive a new trial based on [an] unobjected-to closing argument, the party must establish that the argument being challenged was improper, harmful, incurable, and so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice requires a new trial.”
Establishes the four-part Murphy test that must be satisfied for a new trial based on unobjected-to closing arguments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDisney's counsel made improper arguments during closing statements at trial. The Grimeses did not object to these arguments at the time they were made…
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 Fundamental Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. ("Disney") appeals the trial court's order granting the motion for new trial filed by Troy Douglas Grimes and Tracey Grimes ("the Grimeses") based upon certain arguments made by Disney's counsel during closing and not objected to by the Grimeses. We reverse.
Disney's arguments, while indeed improper, did not rise to the high standard delineated in Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010, 1031 (Fla. 2000). The Florida Supreme Court held in Murphy"that before a complaining party may receive a new trial based on [an] unobjected-to closing argument, the party must establish that the argument being challenged was improper, harmful, incurable, and so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice requires a new trial." Id.; accord Companioni v. City of Tampa, 51 So.3d 452, 456 (Fla. 2010) (holding that, if a party failed to object to an instance of attorney misconduct during trial, then the conduct is subject to a fundamental error analysis pursuant to Murphy ). We hold that the impropriety in Disney's closing arguments could have been cured by a timely objection, after which the trial court could have sustained the objection and issued a curative instruction to the jury. Therefore, the Grimeses failed to establish that "even if the trial court had sustained a timely objection to the improper argument and instructed the jury to disregard the improper argument, such curative measures could not have eliminated the probability that the unobjected-to argument resulted in an improper verdict." Murphy, 766 So.2d at 1030.
Because the Grimeses did not show that Disney's arguments were incurable, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the public's interest in our judicial system requires a new trial. See Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So.3d 513, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[I]f the complaining party fails to establish that the argument being challenged is improper, harmful, and incurable, then the analysis does not proceed to the *180last prong of this four-part test." (emphasis added) ). We reverse the order granting a new trial and remand the case for the trial court to reinstate the jury's verdict.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Little v. Davis, 260 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…n this record, the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting new trial and direct the lower court to enter a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. See Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc., v. Grimes, 248 So. 3d 179, 180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. LEWIS, J., concurs; WOLF, J., concurs in result. 12 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App.…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Jagger S. Ferguson, 290 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Companioni v. City OF Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2010)
- Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)