Question

There are always interesting legal cases in the news. Use a search engine (Google, Bing, etc.) to search for “Tort Cases 2019”. Look through what you find and copy the link* of one of the articles that grab your attention. Post a summary of it, and include your reaction to it AND a copy of the link*, in case classmates might like to read the article in its entirety.

Answer 1

Ans:

Link of the Case (One of the cases of Tort 2019):

https://www.clarkfountain.com/blog/2019/august/the-week-in-torts-cases-from-the-week-of-august-3/

R and W Rental Properties v. Warnick, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2044 (Fla. 5^th DCA August 7, 2019):

Summary Of the Case:

There is difference between "Golden Rule" and "Conscience of the Community" arguments; must make the proper objection to preserve the granting of New Trial.

Here the Plaintif is a professional home Inspector. While doing such inspection in the attic of the house owned by the defendant, he stepped on a particle board and fell down the ceiling injuring himself. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. During trial, the counsel for the defendant argued that the juror was in a special postion for the case and could protect the homeowners of the Volusia County which was objected by the Plaintiff's counsel sayong tat it was an improper "Golden Rule" argument. Later, the court agreed and granted the New trial. The court first pointed out that the argument was a "Golden Rule" argument, it did not urge the jurors to place themselves in the party’s position and to allow a recovery that they would want if they were the party. While the argument may have been an “improper conscience of the community” remark, the objection was made on the wrong legal basis. Thus, the trial court should have only granted a new trial if the argument was improper, harmful, incurable, which it clearly wasn't.

My Reaction:

“A golden rule argument urges jurors to imagine themselves in the position of a party and to grant that party the relief they would wish to have for themselves.” The vice of a golden rule argument is that it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence. I think that the jury is the Conscience of the Community and it is appropriate for trial lawyers to remind the jury of this. It is the closing arguments acknowledging, educating and empowering the jury in their role as the Conscience of the Community against defense motions in limine and objections on such grounds as undue prejudice and “Golden Rule” arguments which inevitably arise.