VICTOR MANUEL RIVERA, GATOR FREIGHTWAYS AND TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARILYN WHITE AND JOHN WHITE, 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.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial where the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, even though supported by substantial competent evidence, because the evidence established the defendant ran a red light and was negligent.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial when the jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, even if the verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence.
[1] A trial court's grant of a new trial motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, not by whether the jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVictor Rivera was involved in a traffic accident. The jury returned a verdict, but the trial court found the evidence established with considerable fo…
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 New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order granting a new trial, which is under review by this appeal, is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the trial court did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial herein based on the rule stated in Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), because on this record it was entitled, although not compelled, to conclude, as it did, from its uniquely superior vantage point that the jury verdict herein was against the manifest weight of the evidence in that the evidence established with considerable force, although not without contradiction, that the defendant Victor Rivera “ran a red and/or malfunctioning [traffic] light” under circumstances in which a reasonable man would not have done so and was, therefore, “guilty of some negligence which was a legal cause of [plaintiffs’ damages,” which conclusion necessarily means, in our view, that the jury was misled as to the force and credibility of the evidence, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d at 673; see Christiana v. White, 346 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and (b) this result is not changed by the fact that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial, competent evidence as an order granting a motion for new trial is not measured on appeal by whether the jury verdict is supported by such evidence, but instead is measured by whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, which abuse of discretion we are unable to find in this case. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430, 432-433 (Fla.1978). We also find no merit to the cross-appeal in this cause.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1981)…e men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then there is no abuse of discretion. See Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Rivera v. White, 386 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). [*1343] The district court’s apparent failure to apply this standard requires that we quash the decision and remand this cause solely for a reexamination of the trial court’s alternative grant of a new trial. It is so ordered.…
-
Ford v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ils to accurately reflect the nature of the authority of the trial court to order a new trial on the grounds that a verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Ford Motor Company v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Rivera v. White, 386 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In Warner v. Goding, 91 Fla. 260, 107 So. 406 (Fla.1926), overruled on other grounds, Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1947), the Florida Supreme Court discussed at length the historical origins of the power to…
-
Salkay v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co., 398 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…4 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla.1980); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Castlewood International Corporation v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1975); Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1970); Victor Manuel Rivera Gator Freightways v. White, 386 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). On consideration of the record we hold the ground relied upon by the trial court could properly support the order of remittitur or in the alternative a new trial.1 Wackenhut Corporation v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Cloud…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Christiana v. White, 346 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)