ROBERT MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CHARLES HOLT, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-04-22
No. 79-1059
Before HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
382 So. 2d 851 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks reversal of an order requiring a new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur. The reasons recited by the trial court in its order together with the record proper indicate the verdict may have been influenced by inflammatory statements concerning matters outside the record made during summation. The trial court, because of its superior vantage point, had broad discretion in this matter. Cassat Avenue Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Bobenhausen, 363 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1978); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); City of Miami v. Graham, 311 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); cert. denied 330 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1976).

No abuse of this discretion having been demonstrated, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Dissent
HUBBART, Judge

HUBBART, Judge

(dissenting).

I must respectfully dissent. I would reverse the order appealed from and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and render a judgment for the plaintiff thereon. In my view, the trial court acted as a seventh juror in ordering the remittitur under review as the reasons appearing in the new trial order do not support the trial court’s conclusion that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and excessive. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1184 (Fla.1977); Lassitter v. Intern. Union of Op. Engin., 349 So. 2d 622, 626-627 (Fla.1976); Corbett v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 375 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Moreover, the alleged inflammatory statements mentioned in the majority opinion do not appear as a ground for the remittitur in the order appealed from and were, in any event, woefully inadequate as a ground for reducing this jury verdict. White v. Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Finally, my review of City of Miami v. Graham, 311 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), convinces me that the facts of such case are so significantly different from the instant case that the decision therein rendered cannot govern the outcome here. I would reverse and remand as indicated above.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Fayden v. Guerrero, 474 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
    …w trial on all issues. The new trial should have been granted only as to the issue of damages. Ford Motor Company v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Wright & Ford Millworks, Inc. v. Long, 412 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Miller v. Dade County, 382 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). [*322] Therefore for the reasons above stated, the matter is returned to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of damages. Reversed and remanded with directions. . We approve and recommend such a procedure. Kilburn v. Da…
  • Mein, Joest & Hayes, M.D., P.A. v. Weiss, 516 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
    …985). If the trial court determines that the jury has been influenced by matters outside the record, it should grant a new trial. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Pullum v. Regency Contractors, Inc., supra; Miller v. Dade County, 382 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); Nazareth v. Sapp, 459 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, 147 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962). In the present case, from a review of the record, we find no evidence supporting defense counsel’s “brain damage…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw