Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Permanent injury — New trial — Plaintiff questioned as to why plaintiff’s boyfriend testified that plaintiff did not complain to him about her injuries if plaintiff was still injured — Trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on a single hearsay question where error was not preserved, and trial court failed to make findings required by Murphy test and failed to address each requirement at the hearing on the motion or in its written order — Requirements of Murphy test cannot be met where, although question was improper, there was ample evidence to support jury finding that plaintiff did not sustain permanent injury, plaintiff cannot establish that the harm caused by the question was incurable, and record demonstrates that counsel’s conduct in asking a single, isolated cross-examination question did not amount to an error that seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process
43 Fla. L. Weekly D2792a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index