Case Name: Robert MILLER, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Charles Holt, Individually, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-04-22
Citations: 382 So. 2d 851
Docket Number: No. 79-1059
Parties: Robert MILLER, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Charles Holt, Individually, Appellees.
Judges: Before HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 382
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
Robert MILLER, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Charles Holt, Individually, Appellees.
No. 79-1059.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 22, 1980.
Susan Goldman, Colson & Hicks, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty. and Roy Wood, Asst. County Atty., for appel-lees.
Before HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks reversal of an order requiring a new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur. The reasons recited by the trial court in its order together with the record proper indicate the verdict may have been influenced by inflammatory statements concerning matters outside the record made during summation. The trial court, because of its superior vantage point, had broad discretion in this matter. Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Bobenhausen, 363 So.2d 1065 (Fla.1978); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978); City of Miami v. Graham, 311 So.2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); cert. denied 330 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1976).
No abuse of this discretion having been demonstrated, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed.