Case Name: A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Laureen FORD, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-04-09
Citations: 468 So. 2d 318
Docket Number: No. 84-542
Parties: A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Laureen FORD, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 468
Pages: 318–320

Head Matter:
A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Laureen FORD, Appellee.
No. 84-542.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 9, 1985.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1985.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and A. Blackwell Stieglitz; Miami, James L. Sanderlin, for appellant.
Stephen Lindsey Gorman; Neil Sand-berg, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
Defendant A.H. Robins Company, Inc. [Robins] appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding $4,900,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to Laureen Ford [Ford] in a products liability action. Ford claimed, and the jury found, that she suffered extensive, irreversible injuries as a result of defects in the Daikon Shield, an intrauterine device manufactured and sold by Robins and implanted into Ford's uterus for a number of years with no warning from Robins concerning its adverse effects. We affirm.
Although Robins raises many points in this appeal, we address only the issue concerning the propriety of certain comments made by Ford's counsel during closing argument. In particular, Robins contends that Ford's counsel improperly appealed to the jury's passion and prejudice by arguing that evidence of other claims of infection against Robins demonstrated that the Dai-kon Shield caused infection. The argument was improper, Robins maintains, because this evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing that Robins had notice of those claims. While we agree that the closing comment was improper, we do not find that it warrants reversal. The record reflects that appellant failed to interpose a timely objection during appellee's final argument. Because the remark was not so inflammatory as to constitute fundamental error, reversal cannot be predicated on the basis of this claimed but unpre-served error. See Honda Motor Co. v. Marcus, 440 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review dismissed, 447 So.2d 886 (Fla.1984); Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Rudy's Glass Construction Co. v. Robins, 427 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); King Pest Control v. Binger, 379 So.2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), aff'd, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981).
Finding appellant's remaining points devoid of merit, we affirm.
Affirmed.