Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co. v. Patterson

385 So. 2d 1035
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 4, 1980
Docket79-42
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 385 So. 2d 1035 (Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co. v. Patterson) 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
Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co. v. Patterson, 385 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

385 So.2d 1035 (1980)

The MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and California Union Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, and Employers Reinsurance Corporation, a Foreign Corporation, Appellants,
v.
Ernest B. PATTERSON and June M. Patterson, Appellees.

No. 79-42.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 4, 1980.
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1980.

*1036 Ernest J. Rice, Orlando, for appellants.

Hale Baugh of Stromire, Westman, Lintz, Baugh, McKinley, Antoon, Clifton & Pearce, P.A., Cocoa, for appellees.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.

The defendant below, the manufacturer of an allegedly defective lawn tractor, appeals from a judgment rendered against it upon an adverse jury verdict in a strict liability case. The only point which gives us pause concerns the rebuttal portion of the plaintiffs' final argument, in which counsel improperly referred to the Ford Pinto and Firestone 500 cases notwithstanding the fact that the trial judge had twice sustained objections to such references during the course of the trial. While we certainly do not approve of this conduct, the record shows that defense counsel made no contemporaneous objections to the argument at the time it was made and raised the issue below only in a motion for mistrial after the jury had been instructed and had retired to consider its verdict. Since the comment, taken in context, was not so inflammatory as to destroy the defendants' right to a fair trial and thus to constitute fundamental error, it is apparent that the mistrial motion came far too late to preserve the issue for review. See State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1980); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701, 169 So. 372 (1936); Bishop v. Watson, 367 So.2d 1073 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 303 So.2d 336 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); H.I. Holding Co. v. Dade County, 129 So.2d 693 (Fla.3d DCA 1961). We find no other error, and the judgment below is therefore

AFFIRMED.

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Related

Blue Grass Shows, Inc. v. Collins
614 So. 2d 626 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Florida Crushed Stone Co. v. Johnson
546 So. 2d 1102 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Santa Fe Development Corp. v. Randolph
506 So. 2d 18 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church
476 So. 2d 289 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
474 So. 2d 825 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Ed Ricke & Sons v. Green by and Through Swan
468 So. 2d 908 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Division of Corrections v. Wynn
438 So. 2d 446 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Green v. Ed Ricke and Sons, Inc.
438 So. 2d 25 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson
433 So. 2d 1319 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Wright & Ford Millworks, Inc. v. Long
412 So. 2d 892 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Erie Ins. Co. v. Bushy
394 So. 2d 228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
385 So. 2d 1035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-ohio-mfg-co-v-patterson-fladistctapp-1980.