Najam, J.
Statement of the Case
Aberdeen Apartments II LLC (“Aberdeen”) appeals the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial in favor of Jessica Miller on her complaint alleging negligence. Aberdeen presents three issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Aberdeen’s summary judgment motion.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Aberdeen’s motion for relief from judgment.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Aberdeen’s motion to correct error alleging excessive damages.
We affirm.
….
During rebuttal closing argument, Miller’s counsel stated as follows:
[Plaintiff’s Counsel]: I am asking you to make it right. It has been one thousand one hundred and sixty-eight days since this fall. Jessica has waited one thousand one hundred and sixty-eight days for Aberdeen to accept any responsibility whatsoever for her pain and suffering for her injuries, for her financial burden. They never have and they never will. Only you the jury have the ability to hold Aberdeen Apartments II, LLC responsible for the damage that was caused to Jessica and make this right. So I am asking you to make it right by awarding Jessica from one hundred and sixteen thousand and eight hundred to two hundred and thirty-three thousand and six hundred dollars and opposing counsel made it very clear that in 28 years he has never heard anyone ask for that kind of money for this kind of injury. One that is not true and two I have only been doing this for 6 years. For 6 years I have been trying cases in front of juries for injured people. Never once have I had a defense attorney admit that their client did anything wrong whatsoever, regardless of the circumstance. I have people that rear end my clients at a red light who have been stopped there for 2 minutes and refuse to accept responsibility. So am I surprised by their position today? Absolutely not. They want you to protect that land owner. That is why we have these laws to protect these land owners who can’t even be bothered to show up for trial. And another thing because John hasn’t filed a complaint with Aberdeen Apartments, that means that they are great property managers? We have jobs, we go to work you could have a hundred different things you could hate about your job but if you don’t complain about any of those to your boss, does that mean that you think your company is a great employer? No. So the circumstantial jump there that John has never made any complaints somehow makes them fantastic is absurd. Who would have the best opportunity to avoid the fall? That is where he is going. Jessica had the best opportunity to avoid the fall. Who had the best opportunity to prevent the fall? Aberdeen Apartments. Jessica got to work, those sidewalks were salted. She didn’t fall. I am not sure what is different about that premises versus Aberdeen. I am asking to make it right by awarding Jessica between one hundred and sixteen thousand and eight hundred and two hundred and thirty-three thousand and six hundred dollars, it is one hundred to two hundred dollars per day for every day that this company has denied responsibility and denied justice to Jessica.
[Defense Counsel]: I am sorry Judge can we approach please.
COURT: Yes
BENCH SIDE BAR: inaudible COURT: [Plaintiff’s counsel], you may continue.
BACK IN FRONT OF THE JURY
[Plaintiff’s Counsel]: Thank you. And you as the jury can calculate damages however you want. This is a metaphor to understand where I come up with my numbers. I can’t force you to calculate it this way, but it is what I believe is fair. You could award three hundred, you could award fifty dollars a day. It is totally up to you. I gave you my fairest most reasonable number because it was I believe in my heart.
Tr. at 87-89.
….
In its subsequent motion for relief from judgment, Aberdeen asserted that Miller’s counsel’s remarks during closing argument constituted misconduct under Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(e), which provides in relevant part that a lawyer may not “allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence . . . or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause” or “the culpability of a civil litigant[.]” And Aberdeen contends on appeal that it was prejudiced by the remarks and that the prejudice prevented Aberdeen from fairly presenting its case because it was denied an opportunity to “counter[]” the “highly prejudicial effect” of the remarks. Appellant’s Br. at 16. Aberdeen asserts that, “[w]hen counsel is guilty of clear misconduct it is presumed prejudicial to the adverse party,” citing Troxel v. Otto, 153 Ind. App. 437, 287 N.E.2d 791 (1972). Id. And Aberdeen maintains that the prejudice denied him a fair trial, citing Outback Steakhouse, 856 N.E.2d at 80. We cannot agree.
First, in denying Aberdeen’s motion for mistrial on this same issue, the trial court stated as follows:
Ok, I think, one, he could have asked for a nickel a day for the rest of her life so, you know, it is an argument of counsel, it is . . . jurors can take it as they see, they have been instructed on what the law is, the motion for mistrial is denied.
Tr. at 92. Thus, the trial court found that Miller’s counsel had not committed misconduct. This court has held that a trial judge has broad discretion in determining what is improper argument. Chaiken v. Eldon Emmor & Co., 597 N.E.2d 337, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied. A reviewing court will reverse a judgment due to improper remarks by counsel during argument only when it appears from the entire record that the remarks, in all probability, formed the basis for securing an incorrect verdict. Id. Aberdeen has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that Miller’s counsel had not committed misconduct.
Second, and moreover, Aberdeen has not shown that the alleged misconduct prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its case at trial….
….
Likewise, here, Aberdeen had ample opportunity during its closing argument to argue damages. Aberdeen asked the jury to limit damages to “around” $15,000 or $20,000 given the amount of Miller’s lost wages and the limited amount of recovery time she needed to regain function of her arm. Tr. at 84. While Aberdeen did not get to “counter” the specific request for damages Miller made during her rebuttal closing argument, the appropriate avenue of relief in that instance was a request for an admonishment and motion for mistrial, which Aberdeen pursued and the trial court denied. But Aberdeen does not appeal the denial of those motions.
In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Miller’s counsel did not commit misconduct. And, in any event, Aberdeen has not shown that the alleged misconduct prevented it from fully and fairly presenting its case at trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Aberdeen’s Trial Rule 60(B)(3) motion to set aside the judgment.
….
Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.