Rollins v. Dickerson and Delgado

EMAS, J. Sharon L. Rollins, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment in her favor and a subsequent order of the trial court denying her motion for additur and, alternatively, for new trial. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, as the alleged errors upon which the motion was premised are either unmeritorious or were not properly preserved. See Roth v. Cohen, 941 So.2d 496, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that an issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved”) (quoting Archer v. State, 613 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993)). Had Rollins’ trial counsel made a specific, proper and contemporaneous objection, thereby giving the trial court adequate notice of the nature and impact of the alleged error, the trial court would have had the opportunity to fashion an appropriate remedy to ameliorate any error and cure the resulting prejudice which Rollins raises for the first time on appeal. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rollins’ motion for additur. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998); Carnival Corp. v. Amato, 840 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Kmart Corp. v. Bracho, 776 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Affirmed.