City of Miami v. Kinser, 187 So. 3d 921

Plaintiff Sheila Kinser fell through a missing section of a City-owned dock while walking backward/sideways pulling a boat and injured her knee and hip.
The City admitted maintenance responsibility for the dock and defended solely on comparative negligence.
A jury found the City 100% at fault and awarded judgment for Kinser; the City moved for a new trial.
The City argued (1) cumulative improper statements in plaintiff’s closing argument denied a fair trial, and (2) the verdict assigning no fault to Kinser was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the City appealed and the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were objected-to closing statements so prejudicial as to require a new trial?	Counsel’s credibility-boosting, denigration of defense, and conscience appeals were proper argument or cured by instructions.	Statements were highly prejudicial and cumulative, depriving the City of a fair trial.	No abuse of discretion; curative instructions and context prevented deprivation of a fair trial.
Were unobjected-to improper remarks (e.g., "courtroom doctors") incurable and requiring a new trial?	Remarks were improper but not objected to; plaintiff relied on the high Murphy standard to avoid reversal.	Such remarks were harmful and tainted the verdict.	City failed to meet Murphy standard; no new trial.
Was the jury’s zero-allocation to plaintiff against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Verdict was supported by evidence and credibility findings.	Evidence showed comparative negligence; verdict was against manifest weight.	Verdict was not against manifest weight.
Did denigration of the defense (calling arguments "ridiculous") cross the line into improper argument?	Argued as fair advocacy.	Argued it improperly disparaged the City for defending itself.	Some remarks were improper; trial court’s rulings and instructions addressed them and did not warrant reversal.

Tanner v. Beck ex rel. Hagerty, 907 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (motion for new trial standard for prejudicial closing argument)
Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (high standard for reversal based on unobjected-to closing remarks)
Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion/reasonableness test on appellate review)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998) (appellate deference to trial court discretion)
Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (new trial standard when verdict is against manifest weight)
Carnival Corp. v. Pajares, 972 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (improper denigration of defense in closing argument)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Revuelta, 901 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (improper insinuation of bad-faith defense conduct)
Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Lewis, 701 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (authority on impermissible witness bolstering)