Narrative Opinion Summary
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) appeals a negligence judgment favoring Michael Kennedy, a minor, and his father after Michael was severely injured by contact with an FPL power line. FPL argues that the trial court wrongly denied its motion for a new trial, claiming the Kennedys' counsel made an improper "Golden Rule" argument during closing statements. FPL also argues that the trial court erred by limiting testimony from one of its experts as a sanction for a discovery violation. Upon review, the court found no abuse of discretion in either ruling. The judgment is affirmed, with Judges Dauksh and Cowart concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Improper 'Golden Rule' Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on claims of improper 'Golden Rule' argument by the Kennedys' counsel.
Reasoning: FPL argues that the trial court wrongly denied its motion for a new trial, claiming the Kennedys' counsel made an improper 'Golden Rule' argument during closing statements.
Sanctions for Discovery Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to limit testimony from one of FPL's experts as a sanction for a discovery violation was upheld as not being an abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: FPL also argues that the trial court erred by limiting testimony from one of its experts as a sanction for a discovery violation.
Standard of Review for Abuse of Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on the issues presented by FPL.
Reasoning: Upon review, the court found no abuse of discretion in either ruling. The judgment is affirmed, with Judges Dauksh and Cowart concurring.