MICHAEL D. MCINTOSH, APPELLANT,
v.
FLAGLER TITLE CO., ET AL., 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 trial court granted a new trial on both liability and damages, reasoning that the jury's award of $26,000 (exceeding the $21,560 claimed) evidenced passion, prejudice, or sympathy. The appellate court reversed, holding that a new trial on all issues was improper when the error concerned only the damages award.
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on all issues. When the error concerns only the damages award, remittitur or a new trial confined to damages is the appropriate remedy, not retrial of liability. The court reversed the order and remanded for the trial court to offer remittitur or a new trial on damages only.
[1] An order granting a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
[2] Granting a new trial is appropriate where the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning the jury was deceived or influenced by considerations outsid…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Granting a motion for new trial is appropriate where the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. This occurs where the jury "has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record...."”
Establishes the legal standard for granting a new trial; merely excessive damages do not automatically satisfy this standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcIntosh brought a claim against Flagler Title Co. and others. At trial, McIntosh presented evidence on damages that was somewhat confusing and in one…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial on both liability and damages. The trial court, referring to specific examples of contradictory testimony and evidence, based its determination to grant a new trial on the fact that the discrepancy between the amount of damages sought ($21,560) and the amount awarded ($26,000) could only be explained by the jury’s passion, prejudice or sympathy for appellant. We reverse.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound, broad discretion of the trial court. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959). An order granting a motion for new trial will not be disturbed on appeal except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Granting a motion for new trial is appropriate where the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. This occurs where the jury “has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record....” and it is then the duty of the trial court to grant a new trial. Cloud, 110 So. 2d at 673.
Commenting on the evidence here, the trial court referred only to contradictions in testimony as to the issue of damages. The issues of liability were clearly factual for the jury. Under such circumstances granting a new trial on all issues is error. Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); E.T. Legg & Associates, Ltd. v. Shamrock Auto Rentals, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.1981). See also Gould v. National Bank of Florida, 421 So. 2d 798, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“where the error is only that the damages awarded are excessive it is not proper to retry the issue of liability: remittitur or new trial on damages is the remedy”). We therefore reverse the order granting a new trial on liability.
The evidence propounded by appellant in support of his claim for damages was somewhat confusing and in one instance contradictory. However, appellant abandoned his effort to recover for that element of damage as to which the evidence was conflicting. With reference to the remaining elements of damage, contradictions in the evidence did not go to the amount of damages but rather to when and how they were incurred.
In his closing argument appellant requested damages in the amount of $21,560, and there was evidentiary support for that amount. The trial court should have granted, alternatively, remittitur or a new trial confined to the issue of damages. On remand the trial court is directed to make these alternatives available to appellant.
Because the order granting appellees’ motion for new trial fails to meet the test of Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978), we reverse and remand for entry of an appropriate order and for such further proceedings as may be necessary.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. TEW, 512 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…of the evidence was based solely on his disagreement with the jury’s determination on liability. Our sister courts have held that judicial reweighing of the evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Crown Cork; McIntosh v. Flagler Title Co., 483 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Eley v. Moris, 478 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s finding that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence was error, and was an abuse of the court’s discretion. The…
-
Steinbauer Assocs., Inc. v. Smith, 599 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…s of Lebanon Hospital Corp. v. Silva, 476 So. 2d 696, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). While Smith vigorously contested liability at trial, that fact alone is not enough to require a new trial on both liability and damages. See McIntosh v. Flagler Title Co., 483 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corp. v. Silva. Since the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence on damages, there must be a new trial on that issue. Continuum Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Continuum VI, Inc., 54…
-
Jordan v. The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty., 531 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…isregarding the results of the interviews, the admission of subsequent remedial actions by appellee, in violation of the trial court’s order, is sufficient to trigger the court’s discretion in ordering a new trial. See McIntosh v. Flagler Title Co., 483 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We also pause to recognize the heavy case load of our trial judges. In the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion, the better part of valor would be to simply deny a motion for new trial. We recognize the thoughtful and deliber…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Gould v. Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ligman v. Jeffrey Tardiff, M.D., 466 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- E. T. Legg & Assocs., Ltd. v. Shamrock Auto Rentals, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)