Case Name: TARGET STORES, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation, Appellant, v. Corinne DETJE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-12-18
Citations: 833 So. 2d 844
Docket Number: No. 4D02-139
Parties: TARGET STORES, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation, Appellant, v. Corinne DETJE, Appellee.
Judges: TAYLOR, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 833
Pages: 844–847

Head Matter:
TARGET STORES, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation, Appellant, v. Corinne DETJE, Appellee.
No. 4D02-139.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 18, 2002.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 2003.
Kathryn L. Shanley of Peterson, Bernard, Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Bambi G. Blum of Bambi G. Blum, P.A., Miami, and Simon & Nelson, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
GROSS, J.
After a jury trial, appellee Corinne Detje recovered a judgment against appellant Target Stores arising from a slip and fall incident. Detje fell over a red-painted wooden cart stopper outside of the store.
We affirm and address Target's complaints about the plaintiffs closing argument. Although Detje's lawyer made two improper comments during his closing argument, the errors were harmless. After an examination of the entire case, it does not appear that the comments "resulted in a miscarriage of justice." § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2001).
The parties stipulated that "any violations of the building code will need not be determined." The parties agreed not to produce experts on building code violations. Nonetheless, appellee argued in closing: "What makes this an exacerbating form of negligence is not only the fact that the condition existed, but they created it based on the evidence in this case without the permission, consent of any authority." There was no evidence that the placement of the cart stopper violated any building code or that Target needed the permission of any "authority" to install the cart stopper. Although counsel's comments were not in derogation of the stipulations, the argument suggested that the jury base its decision on matters outside the evidence.
Detje also argued in closing that she had opened up her whole life, while Target's witnesses each forgot to tell the jury something. Appellee's counsel said that Target employee Christine Duke "admitted that there were at least four photos attached to the incident report. What do they put into evidence? One out of three. One out of four is not bad. I wonder what the other three look like." We agree with Target that this argument was improper because counsel had seen the other three photos in discovery and knew that they were cumulative to the photograph in evidence.
Detje relies on Fino v. Nodine, 646 So.2d 746, 751-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), but that case does not compel a different conclusion. Fino recognized the general rule that in a civil case a party may urge the jury to draw an unfavorable inference from a party's failure to testify. Id. at 751. However, Fino recognized the limitation on that rule that the "unfavorable inference which may be drawn from the failure of a party to testify is not warranted tuhen there has been a sufficient explanation for such absence or failure to testify." Id. (quoting Geiger v. Mather of Lakeland, Inc., 217 So.2d 897, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)) (emphasis in original).
A similar rule applies to Target's failure to introduce the photographs in this ease. It was improper for appellee's counsel to draw an adverse inference, since he had seen the photos and knew that they were merely cumulative of the photograph in evidence.
Target objects to several references to Target as a "big corporation." We find no error. Taken in context, the comments were not an invitation to decide the case on the improper basis of the financial status of the parties.
We find the two errors to be harmless. They were not the focus of the argument. During closing argument, defense counsel effectively rebutted the reference to the photographs by pointing out that Target could not be hiding anything because the plaintiffs lawyer had seen the photographs. The case was straightforward and short, so the importance of the closing argument in the result was minimal.
As to Target's remaining complaints about Detje's closing argument, we find no error.
AFFIRMED.
TAYLOR, J., concurs.
KLEIN, J., dissents with opinion.