Elgin Sweeper Co. v. Tejada

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elgin Sweeper Co. v. Tejada

697 So. 2d 180, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7759, 1997 WL 375093

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1997

DocketNos. 96-1823, 96-199

StatusPublished

This text of 697 So. 2d 180 (Elgin Sweeper Co. v. Tejada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elgin Sweeper Co. v. Tejada, 697 So. 2d 180, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7759, 1997 WL 375093 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Elgin Sweeper Company, defendant below, appeals from two final orders: one for damages and one taxing costs. We reverse.

Manuel Tejada, an employee of the City of Miami, was injured while operating a street sweeper manufactured by Elgin. He sued Elgin for strict liability in tort and negligent design. The jury returned a verdict for Te-jada; Elgin appeals and raises four issues. Two of the issues concern comments made by Tejada’s counsel during witness examination and closing argument, one concerns the admission of evidence of prior similar accidents, and the final issue involves the trial court’s exclusion of one of Elgin’s expert witnesses.

Although none of the four issues alone would be sufficient, we find that the cumulative effect requires a new trial. See Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon, 466 So.2d 1167, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(“Although the points raised herein may present close questions on each individual issue, we find that the cumulative impact of plaintiffs counsel’s complained-of actions at trial clearly mandates reversal in this cause.”); Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(dis-cussing some of the factors considered by appellate courts as to various comments of counsel and noting that cumulative comments, viewed in light of the record, can give rise to reversible error).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Elgin Sweeper Company, defendant below, appeals from two final orders: one for damages and one taxing costs. We reverse.

Manuel Tejada, an employee of the City of Miami, was injured while operating a street sweeper manufactured by Elgin. He sued Elgin for strict liability in tort and negligent design. The jury returned a verdict for Te-jada; Elgin appeals and raises four issues. Two of the issues concern comments made by Tejada’s counsel during witness examination and closing argument, one concerns the admission of evidence of prior similar accidents, and the final issue involves the trial court’s exclusion of one of Elgin’s expert witnesses.

Although none of the four issues alone would be sufficient, we find that the cumulative effect requires a new trial. See Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon, 466 So.2d 1167, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(“Although the points raised herein may present close questions on each individual issue, we find that the cumulative impact of plaintiffs counsel’s complained-of actions at trial clearly mandates reversal in this cause.”); Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(dis-cussing some of the factors considered by appellate courts as to various comments of counsel and noting that cumulative comments, viewed in light of the record, can give rise to reversible error).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 180, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7759, 1997 WL 375093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elgin-sweeper-co-v-tejada-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack