Case Name: Kenneth GOLD and Susan Gold, Appellants, v. WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., d/b/a Flagler Dog Track, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-11-05
Citations: 997 So. 2d 1129
Docket Number: No. 3D07-2344
Parties: Kenneth GOLD and Susan Gold, Appellants, v. WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., d/b/a Flagler Dog Track, Appellee.
Judges: Before RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, and CORTINAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 997
Pages: 1129–1132

Head Matter:
Kenneth GOLD and Susan Gold, Appellants, v. WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., d/b/a Flagler Dog Track, Appellee.
No. 3D07-2344.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 5, 2008.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 6, 2009.
Anthony J. Brown, Miami, for appellants.
Angones, McClure & Garcia and John McClure, Miami, and Barbara K. Case, for appellee.
Before RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, and CORTINAS, JJ.

Opinion:
CORTINAS, J
Appellants, Kenneth Gold ("Mr. Gold") and Susan Gold, seek review of the trial court's order denying their motion for a new trial as well as the final judgment entered in favor of appellee. Appellants argue that they are entitled to a new trial on several grounds, including improper statements made by appellee's defense counsel during his closing argument as well as improper and/or prejudicial cross-examination of certain witnesses by defense counsel. We address only the particular statement which our dissenting colleague believes warrants a new trial.
The underlying action filed by appellants alleged that Mr. Gold, due to the negligence of appellee and its agents, fell while walking down stairs on appellee's property and was injured. Appellants further alleged that, as a result of his injuries, Mr. Gold incurred medical expenses and lost wages. Upon a motion by appellants, the trial was bifurcated and the case was tried solely on the issue of liability. In his closing argument, defense counsel made the following statement to the jury:
I've been doing this for almost 30 years now, and it invariably happens somebody falls down somewhere. They don't know why they fell. They don't know for sure where they fell. The investigator and the photographer go back to the scene of the accident. They go around and take pictures of everything they can find that looks bad.
Appellants' trial counsel made a contemporaneous objection to the statement, but the objection was overruled. Defense counsel then continued his closing argument as follows:
As often as not they don't take pictures of the spot where they fell because they don't know where they fell. They don't know why they fell. They missed a step. And the reason for that is exactly what you've seen for the last three days, so you can parade all these pictures of allegedly dangerous conditions in front of the jury in the hopes you'll find that, well, even though it didn't happen here, it must have been the same thing here. But thank God we have a picture that was taken at the time of the incident. And it's up to you to decide whether there's something in that picture that shows a tripping hazard.
Appellants did not move for a mistrial. Moreover, the jury had ample opportunity to view the photographs that were admitted into evidence.
We begin by finding that defense counsel's statement was clearly improper and the court erred by not sustaining the objection. However, after reviewing the entire trial record, we find that such error was harmless, and therefore, is not a basis for reversal. Target Stores v. Detje, 833 So.2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Katos v. Cushing, 601 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA
1992); Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So.2d 1259, 1267 n. 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Bakery Assocs., Ltd. v. Rigaud, 906 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("Improper comments made during closing argument will not serve as a basis for the granting of a new trial unless the improper comments are highly prejudicial and inflammatory") (citing Maksad v. Kaskel, 832 So.2d 788, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); Decks, Inc. v. Nunez, 299 So.2d 165, 166— 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) ("The law is well settled that unless closing argument is highly prejudicial, inflammatory improper statements will not result in mistrial, reversal or new trial.") (citing Dixie-Bell Oil Co. v. Gold, 275 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)); see also City of Miami v. Fletcher, 167 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). As such, we affirm the denial of the motion for a new trial based on the improper statement made by defense counsel during closing argument and also affirm as to all other issues on appeal.
Affirmed.
SUAREZ, J., concurs.