HALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
KATHLEEN G. BAUDO, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY AND STEVEN B. STRATTON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court held that the trial court's order granting a new trial was insufficient because it did not articulate specific reasons for the decision, preventing proper appellate review.
[1] An order granting a new trial must articulate specific reasons sufficient for appellate review, even if not explicitly stating the verdict was against the manifest weight…
[2] Orders granting new trials must provide reasons that support a conclusion that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerat…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff against two defendants and in favor of two additional defendants. The trial court granted a new trial for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a appeal from an order granting a new trial to the appellee, Kathleen G. Bau-do. In this personal injury action the jury returned a verdict against the defendants, Steven B. Stratton and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, and in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, for $750,000.00.
The jury also returned a verdict in favor of appellants, Hale Manufacturing Company and Employers Casualty Company, who were additional defendants in the court below. In the order granting a new trial on both liability and damages the trial court stated that the verdict as to appellants was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We conclude that this order does not sufficiently set out the reasons why the motion was granted so as to allow proper appellate review. In Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978) the Supreme Court stated: Although an order for new trial need not ineant language to the effect that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerations outside the record, the order must give reasons which will support one of these two conclusions so that it will be susceptible of appellate review. See Thompson v. Williams, 253 So. 2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).
Orders granting motions for new trials should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may be able to fulfill their duty of review by determining whether judicial discretion has been abused. (Id. at 435)
Also see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(f), which requires that orders granting new trials set out the specific reasons therefor. The appellee, Baudo, has also cross-appealed the trial court’s order denying her motions for directed verdict. We find no error in such rulings.
Accordingly, jurisdiction is hereby relinquished to the trial court in accordance with the provisions of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(f) for a period of 30 days so that the trial court may enter an order specifying the grounds for granting the new trial.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and JOHNSON, TOM, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kikis v. Ford Motor Co., 386 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
-
Hale Mfg. Co. & Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Baudo, 371 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Gertrude Thompson v. Williams, 253 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)