City of Tampa v. Companioni
34 Fla. L. Weekly D 1777 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009) (August)
The plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle struck a city vehicle, and he brought suit against the city. The city moved for a new trial based on what it (and the trial court) believed to be prejudicial conduct by the plaintiff’s attorney, but the judge denied the motion on the basis that the objection was not preserved and the behavior was not so extreme so as to undermine the process. The district court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial judge noted that the city had not moved for a mistrial, and that it had thus not preserved the issue. The district court held that moving for a mistrial is not a prerequisite for moving for a new trial. Also, the trial judge did not need to weigh how bad the plaintiff’s attorney’s conduct was, but only whether it deprived the city of a fair trial.