Case Name: Douglas M. SAUNDERS and Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Thomas J. SMITH and Claudia Smith, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-04-09
Citations: 382 So. 2d 1254
Docket Number: No. 77-2481
Parties: Douglas M. SAUNDERS and Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Thomas J. SMITH and Claudia Smith, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: BERANEK, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 382
Pages: 1254–1257

Head Matter:
Douglas M. SAUNDERS and Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Thomas J. SMITH and Claudia Smith, his wife, Appellees.
No. 77-2481.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 9, 1980.
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1980.
Edna L. Caruso and Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Richard J. Meehan of DeSantis, Cook, Meehan, Cohen, Gaskill & Silverman, P. A., North Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
SIMONS, STUART M., Associate Judge.
For consideration in this appeal is the sole issue of whether certain comments by defense counsel on voir dire were so prejudicial as to authorize the granting of a new trial although no request for curative instructions was made, nor request for mistrial was made, nor demand made for a new venire. The case involved a knee injury and complications suffered by appellee Smith. Saunders concededly was at fault in a traffic accident involving appellee Smith; the only issues submitted to the jury were causation and damages. A verdict was returned in Saunders' favor and against Smith, and judgment was entered thereon. Smith made a motion for new trial, asserting numerous errors in the proceedings. The motion was denied on all grounds except for that ground which stated that the court erred in "failing on its own motion to strike all voir dire statements made by counsel for the defendant when referring to the proposed witness in voir dire," i. é., that the jury should have known of witnesses from newspaper articles wherein he was accused of tax evasion.
Plaintiff's counsel objected to the statements made on voir dire, and the objections were sustained, but counsel neither asked for curative instructions, a mistrial, nor made demand for a new venire.
Trial judges are vested with broad discretion in granting a new trial, and appellate courts will not reverse an order granting new trial absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). In Weems v. Dawson, 352 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the standard for reversal was stated as whether the trial court's order was arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable or that no reasonable man would adopt such a view. The court below felt that it had erred in not acting on its own motion to strike the improper statements to which it had already sustained an objection. We find this to be an unreasonable view of the responsibility of the trial court. The failure on the part of counsel to ask for curative instructions, request a mistrial, or to move for a new venire constituted intentional trial tactics, mistakes of which are not to be cured upon appeal simply because they backfired. Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Company, 368 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
To allow an order granting new trial such as this to stand would be sanctioning a view of "fundamental error" which does not exist in law, and which would place upon the trial judge an untenable burden. The trial judge in a complicated civil matter has difficulty enough in ruling on motions and objections of the attorneys throughout the course of a trial without imposing upon himself this additional burden. Failure to act sua sponte without a specific request by a party should not be grounds for a new trial except in the most severe case. The order granting new trial is thus reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict in favor of defendant and for further appropriate proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REINSTATE THE JURY VERDICT.
BERANEK, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.