Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. James CURRY, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-12-01
Citations: 608 So. 2d 587
Docket Number: No. 91-96
Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. James CURRY, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 608
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. James CURRY, et al., Appellees.
No. 91-96.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 1, 1992.
Walton, Lantaff, Sehroeder & Carson and G. Bart Billbrough and Geoffrey B. Marks, Miami, for appellant.
Bernard H. Butts, Jr., Hialeah, for appel-lees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.

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.