Case Name: Michael SCHUBERT and his wife, Patti Schubert, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-07-10
Citations: 603 So. 2d 554
Docket Number: No. 91-2129
Parties: Michael SCHUBERT and his wife, Patti Schubert, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: DIAMANTIS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 603
Pages: 554–556

Head Matter:
Michael SCHUBERT and his wife, Patti Schubert, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 91-2129.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 10, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1992.
Linda L. Winchenbach of Daniel L. High-tower, P.A., Ocala, for appellants.
E. Peyton Hodges of Cameron, Marriott, Walsh & Hodges, P.A., Orlando, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal in a personal injury action, the trial court having denied appellants' motion for a new trial. Appellants, the plaintiffs below, argue that they are entitled to a new trial because the improper statements of defense counsel in his opening statement and closing argument constituted fundamental error. We agree, and reverse.
The appellants should be given a new trial because appellee's lawyer saw fit to make inflammatory and improper comments to the jury. He said, for example, that the jury was the "conscience of the community"; that plaintiff's doctor "as he usually does, has found a permanency"; gave his own opinion on the qualifications and truthfulness of his witnesses; told the jury that plaintiffs were seeking "not a small fortune, a large one" and "Don't, don't let little Nicholas [appellants' child] think that this is the way you get from one end of life to the other." He also said "I'm here to tell you the truth" and that plaintiff Patti Schubert "should have said thank goodness I wasn't injured more seriously" instead of seeking recompense for what injuries she got. He said the treating health care providers had ulterior, self-interested, motives in testifying and admonished the jury not to be deceived by them.
Defense counsel finally attacked appellants' lawyer by saying he would do "anything to advance the cause." Some may consider these final words as "fighting words." While some of counsel's remarks alone may not have required reversal, the cumulative effect of the improper comments certainly warrants reversal and award of a new trial. See Westbrook v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 754 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir.1985); Riley v. Willis, 585 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Maercks v. Birchansky, 549 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Stokes v. Wet 'N Wild, Inc., 523 So.2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); S.H. Inv. and Development Corp. v. Kincaid, 495 So.2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Erie Ins. Co. v. Bushy, 394 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
DIAMANTIS, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.