WILBURN T. RUSSELL AND JANICE B. RUSSELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
JANE ANN GUIDER, HELEN N. GUIDER, AND UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 while defense counsel's conduct was improper, it did not constitute fundamental error because plaintiffs' counsel failed to object or move for a mistrial.
This was an automobile collision case with admitted liability where defense counsel made improper comments during voir dire and closing arguments 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 Automobile Collision cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge.
The plaintiff-appellants assign as error certain questions by defense counsel during the voir dire examination in the trial below. They also assign as error comments by defense counsel with regard to this same subject matter during closing arguments. These questions and comments by defense counsel were clearly improper. The action below was, in general, a typical automobile collision case with an admission of liability. Defense counsel made more than one blatant attempt to inject an emotional issue before the jury concerning a possible relationship between verdicts in such cases generally and the rising insurance premium rates. Although we are firm in our censure of defense counsel for this clearly improper tactic, we are mindful that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to either move for a mistrial or for an instruction that the jury disregard the comments as having no place in the consideration of its verdict.
No error on behalf of the trial judge has, therefore, been established, and although these acts by defense counsel were improper, we do not find them to be error of a fundamental nature. See Griffith v. Shamrock Village, 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957); Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1956); Tampa Transit Lines v. Corbin, 62 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1953); Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
The final judgment is affirmed.
DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rudy's Glass Constr. Co. v. A.D. Robins, 427 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ammatory or prejudicial, reversal is not mandated. See Allred v. Chittenden Pool Supply, Inc., supra; Griffith v. Shamrock Village, 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957); Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1956); Russell v. Guider, 362 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1979). No reversible error in the trial or jury verdict having been demonstrated, the judgment below is Affirmed.…
-
Eve Taylor v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 546 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…rror. See Honda Motor Co. v. Marcus, 440 So. 2d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1984); Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 474 So. 2d 825, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986); Russell v. Guider, 362 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1979). The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects, Affirmed.…
-
Biegalski v. O'Brien, 397 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…LETTS, Chief Judge. Affirmed on the authority of Russell v. Guider, 362 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) cert. denied 368 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1979), and King Pest Control v. Binger, 379 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957)
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1956)
- Apalachicola N. R.R. Co. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Corbin, 62 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1952)