General Development Corp. v. Division State Planning

The defendant-appellants primary contention is that the very substantial adverse jury verdict and judgment in this personal injury case{/Cite} was fatally infected by the egregiousness of plaintiffs counsels final argument. It is indeed clear that the lawyers for both sides, particularly Richard Reynolds for the plaintiffs, and John G. Poole, Jr. for the defendant, engaged in a disgraceful display of unprofessional conduct{/Cite} which was much more appropriate to a prize fight or, more accurately, to a gladiatorial contest than to a search for truth in the halls of justice. Ironically, it is this common participation in the misconduct which lies at the heart of the plaintiffs arguments for affirmance. Thus, they suggest (a) that a party like the defendant which participates in an alley fight{/Cite} should not be heard to complain that his opponent did not adhere to the Marquis of Queensberry rules, and (b) that reversal is not justified because, as an aspect of the mutual combat engaged in below, the defendant did not timely object to the now alleged improprieties. See Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Co., 368 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Because we cannot agree that a judgment rendered under these circumstances may be permitted to stand, we do not accept this position.