Harris v. Grunow
71 So. 3d 186
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Grunow and O.R. Golf Partners owned land adjacent to John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in the Florida Keys; Harris adjacent to the Park and plaintiffs’ lots.
- DEP cited Grunow and O.R. Golf for directing non-party landscapers to cut protected mangroves without a permit on Park property, ordering remedial planting.
- Grunow and O.R. Golf sued the Harrises for negligence, negligent supervision, indemnification, and equitable subrogation based on alleged Harrises’ orders to cut mangroves; Harrises were never fined or cited.
- After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Harrises, and the trial court entered final judgment for them.
- Grunow and O.R. Golf moved for a new trial; the trial court granted it on three grounds related to in limine, impeachment, and closing argument.
- This appeal challenges the new-trial order; the Third District reverses and directs entry of final judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of in limine on settlements | Settlement evidence improperly influenced the jury. | No settlement evidence was admitted; the veil of settlement was not breached. | No abuse; limited evidentiary impact; new trial order reversed. |
| Impeachment of a non-party witness with prior statements | Improper impeachment testimony occurred. | Impeachment properly supported by prior inconsistent statements; permissible. | Not an abuse; admissible impeachment and no reversible error. |
| Closing argument about missing witnesses | Defense commentary violated Murphy v. International Robotic Systems criteria for new-trial relief. | Argument was within bounds and not overly prejudicial. | Insufficient to warrant a new trial; no reversible error. |
| Other arguments (limitations, directives, and payments) moot | Alternative bases for directed verdict supported by law. | These arguments are moot given the jury’s verdict and other findings. | Moot; not decided on appeal. |
| Overall reasonableness of trial court’s new-trial grant | New trial was warranted due to multiple prejudicial errors. | No reversible errors occurred; verdict supported by record. | Abuse of discretion found; reversal and entry of final judgment consistent with jury verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greens to You, Inc. v. Gavelek, 967 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial orders)
- Niebla v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 533 So.2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (abuse-of-discretion framework for reviewing new trials)
- Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1997) (impeachment of one's own witness—dynamic rule balancing)
- Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (four Murphy criteria for improper closing argument relief)
- Haliburton v. State, 561 So.2d 248 (Fla. 1990) (missing witness inference framework)
- Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So.3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) (policies favoring settlement and restrictions on settlement evidence)