CITY OF TAMPA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH J. JORDA AND LOUIS D. JORDA, HER HUSBAND, 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 City of Tampa appeals an order granting a new trial in a negligence action where a jury found Mrs. Jorda 95% negligent and the city 5% negligent for injuries she sustained by stepping on a defective city water meter box. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred in granting the new trial because the negligence of both parties was properly submitted to the jury.
The trial court erred in granting a new trial because there was sufficient evidence of the city's negligence in failing to properly maintain the meter box to present a jury issue, and the negligence of both parties was properly submitted to the jury for determination.
[1] A trial court's order granting a new trial is reviewed by an appellate court based on the reasons articulated by the trial court.
[2] Evidence concerning a city's failure to properly maintain a water meter box can be sufficient to present a jury issue in a negligence action.
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 intelligence“In reviewing an order for new trial, the appellate court must look to the reasons articulated by the court below.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate examination of new trial orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Jorda fell and was injured when she stepped on a city water meter box located in her front yard; the meter box gave way due to sand beneath it ha…
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
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a negligence action.
Mr. and Mrs. Jorda sued the City of Tampa for injuries suffered by Mrs. Jorda when she fell as a result of stepping on a city water meter box located in her front yard. The jury found the Jordas’ damages to be $10,000 but concluded that Mrs. Jorda was 95% negligent and that the city was only 5% negligent. The court entered an order granting a new trial, and the city appeals.
The city first argues that the court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict because of a total absence of evidence of negligence on the part of the city.1 While the point was close, we believe that the evidence concerning the city’s failure to properly maintain its meter box was sufficient to present a jury issue.
In reviewing an order for new trial, the appellate court must look to the reasons articulated by the court below. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978). Here, the trial judge granted a new trial upon the ground that it had erred in submitting the issue of Mrs. Jorda’s negligence to the jury.2
According to Mrs. Jorda, the meter box gave way when she stepped on its lid, causing her to fall. After the accident it was determined that some of the sand beneath the meter box had fallen away so as to allow the box to become tilted. Mrs. Jorda gave no testimony concerning the position of the meter box before her fall or whether she even saw it before stepping on it. Among other points upon which she was impeached, she acknowledged having testified at her deposition that she was looking at her mail as she walked across the yard. For what it was worth, the city also brought out that Mrs. Jorda had admitted to drinking a beer a short time before the accident occurred. Viewing the evidence as a whole, we believe that the court properly submitted the negligence of both parties to the jury.
We reverse the order granting a new trial and remand with directions to enter judgment according to the jury verdict.
HOBSON, A.C.j!, and SCHEB, J., concur. . Even though the city is appealing from an order granting a new trial, it is entitled to make this argument pursuant to the authority of Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1976). See committee notes pertaining to the 1977 revision of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110.
. Contrary to Purvis v. Inter-County Telephone & Telegraph Co., 173 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1965), the court apparently granted a new trial on damages as well as liability even though the only reason given for granting a new trial was a purported judicial error on a liability issue. However, in view of our disposition of the case, we need not pursue this point.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allard v. Al-Nayem Int'l, Inc., 59 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…12 (Fla.1976) (“[Ajppeals taken from new trial orders shall be treated as appeals from final judgments to the extent possible, and ... appellate courts of this state have the authority to deal with other appealable issues.”); City of Tampa v. Jorda, 445 So. 2d 699, 700 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (noting that, pursuant to Bowen, City was entitled to argue in appeal from order granting new trial that directed verdict was error); Hill v. Am. Med. Affiliates, Inc., 387 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (explainin…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Jagger S. Ferguson, 290 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
-
LEE Cnty. Dep't OF Transp. v. The Island Water Ass'n, Inc., 218 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…protruding above the roadway. Even if the valve protruded due to the erosion of the asphalt around it, Island Water is not absolved of its responsibility to keep the public safe from a known tripping hazard. For instance, in City of Tampa v. Jorda, 445 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), this court determined that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the issue of the negligence of both the city and the landowner plaintiff. There, the plaintiff fell when she stepped on the city’s water meter box in…
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976)
- Purvis v. Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1965)