RING POWER CORP. v. ROSIER – No New Trial for Unobjected-to Closing Argument

In this negligence case tried before a jury, defense counsel referred to an exculpatory clause in a customer service agreement during closing argument, even though the trial court had prohibited the defense from claiming that the exculpatory language barred a finding of negligence.  The trial court granted a new trial.  The appellate court, however, reversed, for two reasons.  First, plaintiff’s counsel did not object during closing argument.  Second, the exculpatory clause was relevant to an issue other than negligence, namely, to rebut plaintiff’s expert testimony suggesting that defendant should have “predicted the future” regarding a possible injury caused by the backhoe loader at issue in the case.

RING POWER CORPORATION v. MELVIN ROSIER, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1543b (Fla. 1st DCA July 18, 2011)