Harrison v. Gregory, 221 So. 3d 1273

Motorcyclist Joshua Lopez (22) died after colliding with a vehicle driven by Marie Harrison; his parents sued Marie and Deborah Harrison in a wrongful-death action.
Trial featured disputed factual and expert testimony, including whether Lopez was impaired by cocaine or marijuana at impact.
Jury found both parties negligent, allocating 75% fault to Marie Harrison and 25% to Lopez, and awarded damages to Lopez’s parents and estate for funeral and medical expenses.
Pretrial order excluded a statement by Marie to her sister (“I just killed a kid”) as unduly prejudicial under Fla. Stat. § 90.403, but the court allowed witness Ruben Ortiz to repeat a similar cellphone statement by Marie at the scene.
During trial an expert mentioned the vehicle was taken by “the insurance company,” violating an in limine order barring insurance references; the court admonished the witness but denied a mistrial.
In closing, appellee’s counsel improperly told jurors that a finding that Lopez was 50% or more at fault meant "there’s no recovery," prompting an objection and curative instruction; the court later denied a mistrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Marie’s out-of-court statement via Ortiz	Ortiz’s testimony about Marie’s cellphone statement was admissible and relevant to circumstances at scene	Statement was cumulative of excluded sister-statement and highly prejudicial under §90.403	Court abused discretion by admitting Ortiz’s testimony when identical statement had been excluded as unduly prejudicial
References to insurance	Single comment was harmless; no pervasive prejudice	In limine barred insurance references; comment risked unfair sympathy/jury bias	Comment violated in limine; though isolated, contributed to cumulative prejudice requiring reversal when combined with other errors
Improper closing about verdict form and 50% rule (§768.36)	Counsel’s explanation was aimed at guiding jury procedure and emphasizing statutory effect	Counsel improperly advised the jury of the legal consequence and sought to induce sympathy for decedent’s parents	Statement was highly improper; court sustained objection and gave curative instruction, but error contributed to overall prejudice
Cumulative error / need for new trial	Individually errors were not reversible; harmless when viewed singly	Errors collectively had reasonable possibility of affecting verdict	Court held cumulative errors were not harmless; reversed final judgment and remanded for new trial (also reversed costs judgment)

LaMarr v. Lang, 796 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2007) (definition of unfair prejudice under §90.403)
Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998) (discussion of unfair prejudice and jury decision-making)
Melara v. Cicione, 712 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (purpose of excluding references to insurance in civil trials)
Carls Mkts., Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1954) (historical rationale for barring insurance references)
Ricks v. Loyola, 822 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2002) (abuse of discretion review for mistrial rulings)
Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (purpose and limits of closing argument)
Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1987) (limits on argument to avoid inflaming jurors)
Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1985) (closing argument must not provoke emotional rather than legal decision)
Rogers v. State, 957 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2007) (cumulative error analysis)
Suggs v. State, 923 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2005) (evaluating cumulative errors)
Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (harmless error standard in civil cases)
Thornburg v. Pursell, 476 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (reversal of related costs judgment when final judgment reversed)