appellants would recover nothing by their action. This appeal followed. Appellants first contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for mistrial following Crawford’s testimony that Rowell was not issued a citation fol lowing the accident. We agree. As the Fourth District has explained: Common sense (and experience as well) tells us that to the average juror the decision of the investigating police officer, i.e., whether to charge one driver or the other with a traffic violation based upon the result of his investigation, is very material to, if not wholly dispositive of, that juror’s determination of fault on the part of the respective drivers. Albertson v. Stark, 294 So.2d 698, 699-700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). We similarly have explained that 466, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>); Lindos Rent A Car v. Standley, 590 So.2d
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 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 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 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