Case Name: Mae TANNER and Norma A. Atima, Appellants, v. Victor BECK, by and through Ruth HAGERTY, Legal Guardian, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-06-01
Citations: 907 So. 2d 1190
Docket Number: Nos. 3D04-1200, 3D04-1201
Parties: Mae TANNER and Norma A. Atima, Appellants, v. Victor BECK, by and through Ruth HAGERTY, Legal Guardian, Appellee.
Judges: Before GREEN, WELLS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 907
Pages: 1190–1202

Head Matter:
Mae TANNER and Norma A. Atima, Appellants, v. Victor BECK, by and through Ruth HAGERTY, Legal Guardian, Appellee.
Nos. 3D04-1200, 3D04-1201.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 1, 2005.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 17, 2005.
Papy, Weissenborn, Vraspir & Puga and Sheridan K. Weissenborn, Coral Gables; and Frances F. Guasch and Luis E. Ordo-nez, Miami, for appellants.
Pivnik & Nitsche and Jerome A. Pivnik, Miami, for appellee.
Before GREEN, WELLS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

Opinion:
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The defendants, Mae Tanner and Norma A. Atima, appeal from an order granting a new trial in favor of the plaintiff, Victor Beck, by and through Ruth Hagerty, Legal Guardian. We reverse.
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants claiming that he was injured when he slipped and fell while exiting their mobile home in March 2002. Prior to trial, the plaintiff moved in limine to preclude the introduction of any evidence regarding the plaintiffs 1993 slip and fall lawsuit that he filed in Bradenton, Florida. The trial court ruled that the defendants could introduce evidence of the slip and fall for the limited purpose of establishing the plaintiffs propensity to fall, but ruled that any evidence of the litigation stemming from that accident was inadmissible.
The issue at trial was causation. The plaintiff claimed that he slipped on a cinder block step on the defendants' porch, which he claimed violated the building code. The defendants, however, claimed that the plaintiff either tripped on the sliding glass door threshold while exiting the mobile home or fell because of his own physical infirmities.
The evidence introduced at trial was that the defendants, Mae Tanner and Norma Atima, and the plaintiff, Victor Beck who lived with his mother, Ruth Hagerty, were neighbors residing at the Goldcoast Mobile Home Trailer Park. In March of 2002, Ms. Tanner purchased a hospital bed and another neighbor, George Lermond, offered to help her move the hospital bed into her mobile home. Unbeknownst to Ms. Tanner, Mr. Lermond asked John Dodson and the plaintiff to help him move the bed into Ms. Tanner's home. Prior to asking the plaintiff for help, Mr. Lermond obtained permission from Ms. Hagerty because the plaintiff is physically impaired due to a 1975 motorcycle accident. As a result of the 1975 motorcycle accident, the plaintiff sustained permanent brain injury, lost his left eye, his vision to his right eye is impaired, and he is partially paralyzed on the right side of his body.
After the bed was moved into the mobile home without incident, the plaintiff tripped and fell as he was exiting the mobile home. This exit consisted of a sliding glass door which led out to a flat row of six cinder block steps covered by Astroturf. The plaintiff fell forward onto his right knee, injuring his right leg.
The plaintiff testified at trial that he caught his foot in a gap between the cinder blocks which was concealed by the Astro-turf. Three photographs of the threshold/step area were entered into evidence, one of which was taken by Ms. Hagerty. The defense disputed the accuracy of the photograph taken by Ms. Hagerty, which was taken approximately two months after the fall occurred and without the permission of the defendants. The accuracy of these photographs was hotly disputed.
The plaintiffs trial testimony was impeached several times. It was impeached by his prior sworn testimony and the testimony of three witnesses. When the plaintiff was deposed prior to trial, he stated that he did not know what had caused him to fall. He stated that he did not know whether he had caught his foot on the metal threshold of the sliding glass door or whether he had tripped on the metal threshold or whether he simply "stumbled over it." When asked if he had lost his balance when he stepped onto the cinder block steps, he replied "no."
His testimony was also impeached by the other two neighbors who carried the bed into Ms. Tanner's mobile home, George Lermond and John Dodson. Both Mr. Lermond and Mr. Dodson were exiting the trailer with the plaintiff, and actually witnessed the fall. Mr. Lermond, who exited safely just prior to the plaintiff, saw the plaintiff "flying" past him. When Mr. Lermond asked the plaintiff what had happened, the plaintiff responded that he "tripped on the door." Mr. Dodson testified that all three of them had entered the same way they exited, and that the plaintiff had no difficulty when entering the home. Mr. Dodson's testimony reflects that he was behind the plaintiff as they left the mobile home and observed the plaintiff as he "kind of drug it [his foot] across the threshold of the sliding glass door, causing him to trip, and he fell forward and landed on his knee." Mr. Dodson explained that it looked like the plaintiffs sandal got caught on the runner of the sliding glass door, which caused him to trip and pitch forward:
[Defense Counsel]: Is there any question in your mind, but that Victor's fall was caused by his sandal getting caught in the runner for the sliding glass door?
[Mr. Dodson]: None, whatsoever.
Dr. Kreitman, who examined the plaintiff on December 5, 2002, also testified. His testimony reflects that Ms. Hagerty told him that her son did not know what had caused him to fall but he did fall injuring his right leg. Dr. Kreitman stated that the plaintiff was also unclear as to what had caused his fall.
The plaintiffs trial testimony was inconsistent with his deposition testimony, the history he provided to Dr. Kreitman, and the testimony of the two eye witnesses to the fall. The plaintiff, however, attempted to bolster his testimony with the introduction of a photograph taken by his mother approximately two months subsequent to the fall. As stated earlier, the defendants disputed the accuracy of this photograph. The plaintiff testified that the photographs he introduced, one of which was taken by his mother, accurately depicted the doorway and steps where he tripped. However, when cross-examined by defense counsel, the plaintiff changed his testimony and stated that the steps pictured in plaintiffs exhibits # 1 and # 3 did not depict how the steps looked on the day he fell. He claimed that they were spaced differently, and at first, he even testified that on the day in question, there was no Astroturf carpet covering the cinder blocks. He then contradicted himself testifying that there was carpeting, but that "it was all ripped up."
Mr. Dodson testified unequivocally that as long as he has known Ms. Tanner, there has been carpeting covering the row of cinder blocks used to shorten the step down from the threshold to the patio. To his knowledge, no one had ever had any difficulty navigating the steps in the past and he had never seen them lined up unevenly or with spaces between them.
Ms. Hagerty testified that, while she took the photograph when Ms. Tanner was not home, she did not alter the scene and that she took the photograph through her screened-in porch. The photograph taken by Ms. Hagerty that was introduced into evidence contradicted her testimony as no evidence of screening was present in the photograph. More importantly, however, was Ms. Hagerty's admission that she had taken the photograph approximately two months after the accident and had no idea what the steps looked like on the day of her son's fall.
The defense additionally introduced substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the plaintiffs fall was as a result of his own infirmities. It was established without dispute that the plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident in 1975 and since that accident, has been under the care of Ms. Hagerty, who, in fact, has power of attorney over his affairs and is his legal guardian. As a result of this accident, the plaintiff lost his left eye, his vision in the right eye is impaired, he is partially paralyzed on the right side of his body, and he has permanent brain damage. While the plaintiff claimed that he recov ered after five years of rehabilitation, he fell in 1993 and broke his knee in Braden-ton while attempting to maneuver on a ramp for the disabled.
Additionally, the undisputed evidence introduced at trial established that between 1994 and the plaintiffs fall at the defendants' home in 2002, the plaintiff was seen by several doctors regarding the "increased incidents of falling and dropping things from his hands." For example, Dr. Trainer, a neurologist, saw him in August 1994, for an evaluation, as did Dr. Weiss, a vascular surgeon, in 1998. In 2001, his mother took him to see another neurologist, Dr. Raicher, due to his unsteadiness and loss of balance. This visit was within one year preceding the plaintiffs fall at the defendants' mobile home. A record from Mariner's Hospital reflects that the plaintiff fell off of a ladder and was treated for a laceration. Also, in 2000, when the plaintiff applied for social security benefits, Ms. Hagerty filled out a form wherein she stated that she prepares his meals for him because his gait is unsteady at times, his hands sometimes have tremors, that he only has the use of one eye with no peripheral vision, and that sometimes he does not see people or objects.
During closing argument, the defense argued that: (1) the plaintiff tripped on the metal threshold of the sliding glass door, not on the cinder blocks step; (2) the plaintiff fell due to his own infirmities; (3) the plaintiff was not a credible witness as his trial testimony conflicted with his own deposition testimony, the testimony of two eye witnesses with no motive to lie, and with the testimony of a physician whom he spoke to several months after the injury; and (4) the photographs introduced by the plaintiff were not relevant nor reliable as they were taken some time after the incident in question, under suspicious circumstances, and where the plaintiff himself disputed their accuracy.
Defense counsel made the following comment during closing argument:
You can see how the mind works. Look at this. This is 1993, we have almost the identical situation. This is when he tripped over in Bradenton. And it is very similar to this. There is a raised ledge at the threshold, kind of like this. His mother, click, click, click, you know how it works, his mother feels that the raised ledge was a little over an inch and was not painted a bright color.
The plaintiff objected and a sidebar conference was held. Thereafter, the trial court issued a curative instruction, instructing the jury to disregard the comment and to only consider the prior fall in determining whether the plaintiff had a propensity to fall. The curative instruction given by the court is as follows:
Members of the jury, [defense counsel] just made some reference in his argument about [Ms. Hagerty] and clicking noises saying you know how the mind works. I am sustaining the objection made by the Plaintiff in regard to that. I want you to disregard that. The evidence I allow [sic] regarding the accident before, I allowed in because the defendants wanted to argue that he had a propensity to fall and that is the only reason you should consider with regard to that.
The jury found in favor of the defendants finding that they were not negligent. The plaintiff moved for a new trial arguing, in part, that defense counsel's "click, click, click" comment during closing argument improperly referred to the prior lawsuit in violation of the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine. The trial court granted the motion for new trial solely on that basis. This appeal followed.
The defendants contend that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial, as the statement in question was clearly neither inflammatory nor prejudicial, and did not violate the order in limine. In response, the plaintiff argues that this court must affirm because the record on appeal is inadequate as there is no transcript of the discussion concerning the motion in limine or of the sidebar conference following the plaintiffs objection to the allegedly improper argument. Further, the plaintiff notes that the trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial comes to this court with a presumption of correctness.
The dissent is persuaded by the plaintiffs argument that there is an insufficient record for appellate review of the trial court's order granting a new trial because there is no record of the pretrial discussion regarding the motion in limine or of the sidebar conference where the plaintiff argued that the motion in limine had been violated. The dissent has additionally concluded that because the court reporter filed a corrected transcript of the proceedings below, that the record on appeal is "suspect" and "problematic for our appellate review." We respectfully disagree.
The dissent has labeled the record on appeal "suspect" because the court reporter submitted a corrected transcript of the proceedings below. We note that the attorneys involved in this appeal have not argued that we should make such a finding and have not even suggested a basis for this conclusion. We have carefully reviewed the different versions of the transcript and, after doing so, we do not find the transcript or the court reporter's actions to be "suspect," nor do we find any reason to impugn the integrity of the court reporter. More importantly, we find no violation of the motion in limine regardless of the version relied upon, and note that neither attorney disputes the substance of the alleged improper argument, nor argues that the record is "suspect" or one which cannot be relied upon. As the attorneys do not dispute what the complained-of argument was, we see no reason to conclude that the submission of the corrected transcript is in any way an issue which merits serious consideration.
We reach the same conclusion regarding the "incomplete" record which the dissent concludes is "problematic." The fact that there is no transcript of the hearing on the motion in limine or of the sidebar conference, is not fatal to this appeal. There is absolutely no dispute as to the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine. The parties agree that the trial court ruled that the 1993 slip and fall accident was admissible to establish the plaintiffs propensity to fall, but that the litigation stemming from the accident was inadmissible. It is also undisputed that the plaintiff contemporaneously objected to defense counsel's closing argument, and that a curative instruction was given. As such, we fail to see how the failure to record the discussions regarding the motion in limine or the sidebar conference impairs our ability for a full and fair review. We, therefore, conclude that the defendants have met their burden of providing this court with a sufficient record. See Bass Orlando Lee Road, Inc. v. Lund, 702 So.2d 250, 251 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(excusing the appellant's failure to provide the appellate court with a copy of an affidavit submitted below when the ap-pellee did not contest the existence of the affidavit or its contents).
In addressing the merits of this appeal, we note that it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to grant a motion for new trial based on an improper comment made by opposing counsel during closing argument. A new trial should be granted if the comment was so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that it denied the opposing party its right to a fair trial. Maksad v. Kaskel, 832 So.2d 788, 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Leyva v. Samess, 732 So.2d 1118, 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Absent an abuse of discretion, the granting of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 497-98 (Fla.1999). Moreover, we are also mindful of the superior vantage point enjoyed by the trial judge, which this court and other appellate courts have traditionally deferred to when considering a motion for new trial. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110, 1111 (Fla.1998).
Were we to agree with the premise upon which the trial court relied and merely disagree with the trial court's decision as to whether to grant a new trial based upon that premise, we would not reverse. We reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial because, based on our review of the objected-to comment, we conclude that: (1) defense counsel did not violate the motion in limine; (2) his argument was fair argument in light of the evidence presented at trial; and (3) even if the jury could have drawn an improper inference from this comment, any potential prejudice was cured by the trial court's subsequent admonition and curative instruction.
Pursuant to the motion in limine filed by the plaintiff, the trial court permitted the defense to introduce evidence regarding the 1993 fall in Bradenton which occurred on a ramp for the disabled, but precluded the introduction of any evidence regarding the litigation associated with the fall. In closing argument the defense argued that in a situation almost identical to the 2002 fall at the defendants' home, "His mother, click, click, click, you know how it works, his mother feels that the raised ledge was a little over an inch and was not painted a bright color ." In the original transcript, the court reporter transcribed defense counsel's argument as follows:
[Y]ou can see how the mind works. Look at this. This is 1993. We have almost the identical situation. This is when he tripped over in Bradenton. Here and its very similar to this. There's a raised ledge at this threshold, kind of like this. His mother, you know, put, put, put, put, you know how it works. His mother feels that the raised ledge was a little over an inch and was not painted a bright color....
In the corrected transcript, the court reporter transcribed defense counsel's argument thusly:
[Y]ou can see how the mind works. Look at this. This is 1993, we have almost the identical situation. This is when he tripped over in Bradenton. And it is very similar to this. There is a raised ledge at the threshold, kind of like this. His mother, click, click, click, you know how it works, his mother feels that the raised ledge was a little over an inch and was not painted a bright col- or....
As the attorneys and the trial court have relied upon the corrected version, we will do so as well, even though we find neither version to be violative of the motion in limine. At no time did defense counsel clarify what the "click, click, click" was that he was referring to. A jury could infer that the "click, click, click" was sim ply a reference to the photograph that Ms. Hagerty took in preparation for this case, which defense counsel contends did not accurately depict the scene on the day in question, or they could infer that perhaps Ms. Hagerty also took pictures in 1993. The trial court's curative instruction suggests a third interpretation, which is that the "click, click, click" represents Ms. Hag-erty's mind, suggesting that she took photographs for the purpose of the present litigation, which in fact was the case. At no time did defense counsel state nor infer that the 1993 fall led to litigation. Thus, we conclude that defense counsel did not violate the motion in limine.
As the defendants claimed that the photograph taken by Ms. Hagerty did not accurately reflect how the steps appeared at the time of the accident and the plaintiff actually testified that they were inaccurate, the accuracy of the photograph was clearly at issue. Since the accuracy of the photograph drew into question Ms. Hagerty's credibility and her motivation, the defense counsel's comment in closing was fair argument.
Additionally, we find that even if the jury could have inferred from counsel's statement that Ms. Hagerty took pictures in 1993 for the purpose of potential litigation, we conclude that the error was harmless because Ms. Hagert/s motivation was relevant in determining the accuracy of the photograph; the complained-of comment was not of such a nature that it deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial; and any potential prejudice was cured by the trial court's curative instruction. See Dozier v. Hodges, 849 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(finding that the trial court properly denied a motion for new trial when the trial court sustained all appropriate objections, gave curative instructions where appropriate, and that the evidence supported the jury verdict). As we conclude that the objected-to comment was harmless error at best, the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial.
In the dissent, it is also argued that the trial court's conclusion in granting a new trial should be affirmed on appeal based upon omissions from the corrected transcript including two objected-to arguments, one of which was sustained and one which was not, and others which were not objected to. As the motion for new trial did not address any of these arguments and the trial court's order granting a new trial was based solely upon its conclusion that the defense violated the motion in limine by making the "click, click, click" comment during closing argument, and that this specific comment was improper and may have affected the verdict, we have confined our review to the grounds raised in the motion for new trial and the grounds asserted by the trial court in its order granting the motion for new trial.
Reversed and remanded to reinstate the jury's verdict.
WELLS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur.