State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curry

608 So. 2d 587, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12447, 1992 WL 353651

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 1, 1992·No. No. 91-96·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The judgment below is reversed for a new trial because the trial judge (a) instructed the jury in the precise manner determined to be erroneous in the later-decided and controlling case of State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 605 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and (b) incorrectly overruled a defense objection to opposing counsel’s statement — which may stand as the very definition of a golden rule argument — asking the jury to “[p]ut yourself in [the plaintiff’s] position, you can imagine the mental anguish and frustration.” See Klein v. Herring, 347 So.2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The judgment below is reversed for a new trial because the trial judge (a) instructed the jury in the precise manner determined to be erroneous in the later-decided and controlling case of State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 605 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and (b) incorrectly overruled a defense objection to opposing counsel’s statement — which may stand as the very definition of a golden rule argument — asking the jury to “[p]ut yourself in [the plaintiff’s] position, you can imagine the mental anguish and frustration.” See Klein v. Herring, 347 So.2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curry, 608 So. 2d 587, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12447, 1992 WL 353651 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

608 So. 2d 587 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Curry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related