question of whether there was negligence on the part of appellant Robert Salinas. Given the answers to the first two questions, the jury did not answer the third question of whether there was negligence on the part of McCracken or the fourth question, which asked the jury to allocate negligence among Rowell, Salmas, and McCracken. Appellants moved for a new trial, making the same arguments that they now make on appeal. The trial court denied the motion and entered a final judgment, in which it declared tha 1114-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (affirming the trial court’s grant of a new trial as a result of the appellants’ counsel’s opening statement that “[n]o citations were issued” following the parties’ collision); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 So.2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (<HOLDING>); Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So.2d 42, 47 (Fla.
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial following the investigating officers affirmative response to the appellees counsels question of whether any traffic citations had been issued as a result of the parties collision holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial following the appellees negative response to his attorneys question of whether he had been cited for a traffic violation following the parties accident and concluding that the question and answer were highly improper and prejudicial and that the harm was hot cured by the trial courts instruction to the jury holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial given the appellees testimony that we dont have no ticket for that accident notwithstanding the fact that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the comment holding that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the admission of evidence that she received a traffic citation following the accidentand concluding that the trial court erred in denying the appellants motion in limine to preclude the appellee from questioning her and the investigating officer as to whether she received a citation