Can “Inflammatory Comments” Justify a New Trial in a Florida Personal Injury Case?
Some Miami residents who have a valid personal injury claim may feel intimidated to step forward and take legal action. There can be a tendency in the press to demonize personal injury plaintiffs as “gold diggers” who flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits looking for a quick payday. But the reality is that far more genuine victims suffer in silence because they are afraid of the potential backlash. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Miami personal injury lawyer who will fight for you and your family.
Civil Assault and Battery Case Sent Back for Retrial
A recent decision from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal illustrates how far some personal injury defendants will go to attack their victims–and how there is a line that can be crossed with the courts. This case, Stevenson v. Israeli, involved an act of deliberate assault and battery. The three plaintiffs alleged that the two defendants, the latter trained boxers, hit them during an argument in a parking garage.
The case proceeded to trial, during which the jury saw video footage of the attack. The jury also learned that one of the defendants separately pleaded guilty to a felony charge in connection with the incident. Despite this and other evidence, the jury largely ruled in favor of the defendants.
The trial judge, however, ordered a new trial due to what the court determined were “improper” and inflammatory comments by the defendants’ attorneys. During closing arguments, defense counsel made multiple statements effectively accusing the plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers of lying to the jury in order to secure a multi-million dollar verdict for their clients.
One of the defendants appealed the judge’s ruling, seeking to reinstate the jury’s verdict in their favor. But the Third District said the trial court acted within its discretion. The appellate court noted that when an attorney’s closing argument “impugns the credibility of opposing counsel” to the jury, that is a “fundamental error” justifying a new trial, as it is effectively an attempt to deprive the other side of their right to a fair trial.
Interestingly, the defendant’s argument on appeal was that his lawyer only sought to impugn the plaintiffs themselves–not their attorneys–which did not constitute a reversible error. The Third District reviewed the actual comments, however, and found that taken as a whole, they were clearly meant as attacks against both the plaintiffs and their attorneys. As such, the trial court had sufficient grounds to order a re-trial in the case.
Contact a Miami Personal Injury Attorney Today
If someone has injured you, whether by negligence or deliberate act, you should not fear asserting your legal right to demand compensation for your losses. Our Miami personal injury lawyers can review your case and advise you on an appropriate course of action. Contact Pita Weber Del Prado in Miami today at 305-670-2889 to schedule a free consultation.
Source:
3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2455874/opinion/Opinion_2024-0618.pdf
