Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1986

Hollar v. Saunders

Hollar v. Saunders
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 2, 1986 · Baskin, Ferguson, Hubbart
498 So. 2d 575; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2542; 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10903 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Hollar v. Saunders

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Finding no merit in appellants’ contentions that the trial court erred when it: 1) admitted offensive photographs of appel-lee’s lacerated arm into evidence, see Adams v. State, 412 So.2d 850 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 182, 74 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982); 2) denied appellants’ motion for new trial based on appellee’s inflammatory closing arguments, Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1985); 3) proceeded to trial before the case was at issue, Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gillespie, 455 So.2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); 4) refused to dismiss an excess insurance carrier as a party; see Randel v. General Insurance Co., 439 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and 5) failed to give a jury instruction regarding sudden and unexpected me*576chanical failure, see Llompart v. Lavecchia, 374 So.2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1980); Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 4.8, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.