Case Name: Claude W. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. BILL LOMAX PAINT AND BODY SHOP, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-07-22
Citations: 225 So. 2d 438
Docket Number: No. 68-948
Parties: Claude W. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. BILL LOMAX PAINT AND BODY SHOP, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 225
Pages: 438–438

Head Matter:
Claude W. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. BILL LOMAX PAINT AND BODY SHOP, INC., Appellee.
No. 68-948.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
July 22, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 1969.
Hawkesworth & Kay and Charles H. Baumberger, Miami, for appellant.
Conway E. Boone, Jr., Hialeah, for ap-pellee.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff below appeals from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in an action for damages for breach of contract. The basis of the appeal is that the trial court should have granted a new trial because of improper argument to the jury by defendant-appellee's attorney.
An examination of the record reveals that the comments complained of occurred in the attorney's opening statement to the jury. We hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the comments were not of such a nature as to require a new trial. Therefore the judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 80; Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809.
Affirmed.