MIGUEL VENET, AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEMS, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIA GARCIA, APPELLEE
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 affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial based on improper final argument by defendants' counsel, finding no clear abuse of the trial judge's broad discretion.
Trial courts have broad discretion in granting new trials, and appellate courts will not reverse absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
[1] Trial courts possess broad discretion in granting motions for new trial, and appellate courts will not reverse such orders absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
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 intelligenceThe trial court granted a new trial after finding that defendants' counsel's final argument to the jury was so improper and prejudicial that the plain…
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 Standard Of Review For New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order of the trial court granting a new trial on the grounds that final argument to the jury by defendants’ counsel was so improper and prejudicial that as a result thereof plaintiff was denied a fair trial.
Appellants urge reversal of the order granting a new trial and that the final judgment entered upon the jury verdict be reinstated.
Trial judges are vested with broad discretion in granting new trials, and appellate courts will not reverse an order granting new trial absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Cloud v. Fallís, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Weems v. Dawson, 352 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.1978); City of Miami v. Veargis, 311 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his broad discretion in granting appellee a new trial. See Seshadri v. Morales, 412 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Erie Insurance Co. v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Eastern S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1980); City of Miami v. Veargis, supra. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canal Ins. Co. v. Susman, 472 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kaufman, 463 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Roberto v. Allstate Insurance Co., 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Loranger v. State, Department of Transportation, 448 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Venet v. Garcia, 433 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Palmer v. Thomas, 284 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Erie Ins. Co. & Margaret Borman v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Wade S. Weems, M.D. v. Dawson, 352 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- E. S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Lamy Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Lyndell Hart v. State, 392 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- City OF Miami v. Veargis, 311 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Induru Seshadri, M.D. v. Hungria Morales, 412 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)