California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Abney v. Coalwell, 19 Cal.Rptr. 846, 200 Cal.App.2d 892 (Cal. App. 1962):
Lastly, appellants contend that the respondents committed error when their counsel argued to the jury that the cause of the accident was the fact that the child unexpectedly ran into the street. There was no objection to this statement in the court below, and ordinarily no complaint can be made on appeal with respect to alleged prejudicial misconduct of opposing counsel in the absence of some proper registration of a complaint in the lower court. (Schultz v. Sussman, 7 Cal.App.2d 100, 103, 45 P.2d 409.) Appellants' attorneys say that they did not object because the trial judge had told counsel in chambers that such an argument would be permitted. But his did not excuse their failure to make an objection in open court if they desired to avail themselves of the point on appeal. In any event, the argument was not improper. As already observed, there may be injuries for which there is no liability, and the sudden dash of the child into the street was arguably at least, the cause of the accident, even though there was no negligence on the part of either plaintiffs or defendants.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.