$1.4 Million Verdict Thrown Out Over Lawyer's Inflammatory Remarks
A Florida appeals court has reversed a $1.4 million jury verdict on behalf of an injured motorcyclist over what it said were “inflammatory and prejudicial” comments made by the man’s lawyer during trial.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal, in a decision (PDF provided by the Daily Business Review) reported Friday by the Daily Business Review, excoriated Miami lawyer Ronald M. Simon for “improper litigation tactics” throughout the trial, including an “improper attack on [the defendant] … and its defense counsel.”
Among Simon’s offenses, the court said, were an improper appeal to the passion and sympathy of the jury in his opening statement, an improper character attack on the other side’s main medical expert, and an improper and prejudicial closing argument.
Simon’s client, William Caiaffa, had been injured in a collision with another motorist. The other driver, Daniel Chin, had conceded liability, so the only issue before the jury was the amount of damages Caiaffa was entitled to.
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Frank Shepherd said Simon had gone well beyond partisan zeal in representing his client. “Unfortunately, [Simon] engaged in litigation tactics, which, taken individually and in combination, indisputably require reversal,” he wrote.
It was the second time in two years that the same appeals court reversed a verdict on behalf of one of Simon’s clients for the same reason. In a 2008 decision (PDF), the court reversed a final judgment in favor of a nurse injured in a slip-and-fall outside a Miami mall due to Simon’s “improper and unprofessional attacks” on the other side.
This time, the appeals court closed with a warning to all lawyers, saying “inflammatory and prejudicial comments and improper conduct—including advancing legal arguments which counsel know are not supportable—will not be condoned” by the court.
Simon refused to comment on the decision while the case is pending, the Daily Business Review said.
