Defense Motion in Limine—Closing Argument—Automobile Collision
In the _________ Court of ________ County, ________
________________________, and )
________________________, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. ____________
vs. )
)
________________________________, )
)
West Palm Beach car accident Defendant. )
WEST PALM BEACH CAR ACCIDENT DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING CLOSING ARGUMENT
Comes now West Palm Beach car accident Defendant, by and through his attorneys, and respectfully requests the Court to enter its order in limine regarding closing argument as follows:
1. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, the fact that there was, or may have been, liability insurance to indemnify West Palm Beach car accident Defendant for the occurrence alleged in plaintiffs’ petition. In addition, any reference to any of the above in any written document including, but not limited to, medical records or statements should be redacted. The existence of any such argument is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and is so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
2. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury that, as a result of the automobile accident in question, plaintiff Louise Plaintiff sustained any mental injury or physical injuries or medical problems relating to headaches, back pain, neurological problems with the strength or grip in her upper left extremity, neck pain, blurred vision, or fatigue for the reason that there is absolutely no competent medical evidence which has been introduced in this case which has established, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability, that any such injuries were caused, contributed to be caused, or aggravated by the motor vehicle collision herein. As such, any argument of any such injuries or medical problems is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and is so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
3. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, any evidence that West Palm Beach car accident Defendant had consumed any alcoholic beverages the day before the accident in question for the reason that any such evidence is too remote in time to be relevant and has no bearing on, and did not cause or contribute to cause, the motor vehicle collision in issue. As such, any argument of any such alcohol consumption is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and is so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
4. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury that West Palm Beach car accident Defendant had been involved in any other motor vehicle accidents on dates either prior to or subsequent to the accident in question. Any such argument is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and has no bearing on, and did not cause or contribute to cause, this motor vehicle collision, or any of the injuries or damages alleged in plaintiffs’ petition in this action, and any such mention is so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
5. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, that plaintiff Jack Plaintiff sustained any loss of wages for time he took off from work to provide attendant care to his wife, or the amount thereof, for the reason that any such claim for damages is not proper element of plaintiff, Jack Plaintiffs’ claim for loss of consortium or personal property damages claim, and any such argument, is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and any mention thereof would be so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
6. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, or introducing into evidence or attempting to introduce into evidence, the fact that plaintiffs have incurred storage charges at $10.00 per day for storing plaintiffs’ vehicle involved in the accident since the date of the accident to the current time for the reason that any such storage charges incurred by plaintiffs are not a proper element of plaintiffs’ damages with respect to said motor vehicle or the damage to said motor vehicle, and any such argument is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and any mention thereof would be so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
7. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, Louise Plaintiff’s opinion, as expressed at the scene of the accident or in her sworn deposition, that the West Palm Beach car accident Defendant’s vehicle was traveling “very fast” when, in fact, plaintiff Louise Plaintiff was unable to estimate the speed of West Palm Beach car accident Defendant’s vehicle in that plaintiff Louise Plaintiff was unable to give any opinion regarding the speed of the vehicle other than West Palm Beach car accident Defendant was traveling “very fast.” Such opinion was speculative and constituted lay opinion on a subject upon which there has been no proper foundation, and it was incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and any mention thereof would be so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
8. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, that plaintiff Louise Plaintiff will sustain any future loss of wages, loss of time from her employment, or loss of future earnings for the reason that there is absolutely no competent medical evidence, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability, that plaintiff Louise Plaintiff will sustain any future loss of time from her employment, and any such argument with regard to the same would be incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial to any issue in this case, and any mention thereof would be so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.
9. Prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from arguing, either directly or indirectly, before the jury or within the hearing of the jury, that it is possible that plaintiff may sustain some future complication from any injury to her hip or femur, such as aseptic necrosis, for the reason that any such argument is not supported by any competent medical evidence, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability, that any such possible complication will in fact occur, and therefore any such argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and does not meet the required standard of admissibility, and any such argument would be so highly prejudicial that the mere mention thereof within the hearing of the jury will deny West Palm Beach car accident Defendant a fair trial despite any subsequent instruction or warning by the Court for the jury to disregard same.

___________________________
Attorneys for West Palm Beach car accident Defendant