Williams v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.

504 So. 2d 27, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 750, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7197

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2386

StatusPublished

This text of 504 So. 2d 27 (Williams v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co.) 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

Williams v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., 504 So. 2d 27, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 750, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7197 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in an action for personal injuries. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. Although plaintiffs claimed a violation of the rule of sequestration of witnesses by the defendants after trial, it is apparent by the record that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the violation during the course of the trial, impeached several witnesses on the basis of the violation and argued the violation in final argument. However, plaintiffs’ counsel made no attempt to exclude the witnesses or their testimony or to seek a mistrial. In one instance counsel specifically noted that the sequestration rule had been violated but that he did not wish to exclude the witnesses’ testimony. Although we agree that a rule violation was demonstrated, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial under these circumstances. Cf. Del Monte Banana Company v. Chacon, 466 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In addition, we find no reversible error as to the jury instructions.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in an action for personal injuries. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. Although plaintiffs claimed a violation of the rule of sequestration of witnesses by the defendants after trial, it is apparent by the record that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the violation during the course of the trial, impeached several witnesses on the basis of the violation and argued the violation in final argument. However, plaintiffs’ counsel made no attempt to exclude the witnesses or their testimony or to seek a mistrial. In one instance counsel specifically noted that the sequestration rule had been violated but that he did not wish to exclude the witnesses’ testimony. Although we agree that a rule violation was demonstrated, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial under these circumstances. Cf. Del Monte Banana Company v. Chacon, 466 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In addition, we find no reversible error as to the jury instructions.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 So. 2d 27, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 750, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-moran-towing-transportation-co-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack