Lawrence v. Beaulieu Group

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawrence v. Beaulieu Group

123 So. 3d 695, 2013 WL 5737374, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16830

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 2013

DocketNo. 3D12-2226

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 3d 695 (Lawrence v. Beaulieu Group) 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

Lawrence v. Beaulieu Group, 123 So. 3d 695, 2013 WL 5737374, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16830 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.

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.

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

EMAS, J.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 3d 695, 2013 WL 5737374, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-beaulieu-group-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack