JOSEPH WARREN LUDLUM, DAPHNE HENDERSON, VITO'S TRUCKING AND EXCAVATING COMPANY, INC., FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE., CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
MAGDA ROTHMAN AND WILLIAM ROTHMAN, 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.
A trial court cannot grant a new trial solely because it disagrees with the jury's verdict if there is sufficient competent evidence to support it.
Plaintiffs sued for personal injuries from a three-vehicle collision. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but the trial court granted a ne…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This was a suit for personal injuries resulting from a three vehicular collision. The evidence was in conflict as to the sequence of events, the manner in which the collision(s) occurred, and fault generally. The accident occurred in 1981 and there were inconsistencies ip the testimony of key witnesses during the six day trial that took place in 1985.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The trial court granted a new trial saying the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because:
a. There were sharp inconsistencies in the defendants’ various statements.
b. The physical evidence strongly supports the plaintiffs’ view of what happened and the plaintiffs’ expert was quite credible.
c. The defendants’ expert, Moss, testified he relied upon what he was shown at the scene by Trooper Floyd. Yet, what he testified he was shown by Floyd differed sharply from Floyd’s own courtroom description of what was observed.
Defendants appeal. We reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment based upon the jury’s verdict.
Upon review, with particular reference to the three stated reasons for overruling the verdict, it is clear that the trial judge constituted himself as a seventh juror and impermissibly gauged the credibility of the witnesses and assessed the weight to be given the evidence. There was sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict and it should not have been nullified even though the trial court obviously thought the plaintiff should have prevailed. We reverse upon authority of Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Kashino v. Morell, 449 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); and Perenic v. Castelli, 353 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1978).
Reversed and Remanded with instructions.
HERSEY, C.J., WALDEN, J., and WEBSTER, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demont v. Demont, 67 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…, and then applied most of it to paying off family and household bills. Although an appellate panel should not disturb the fact-finder’s determinations regarding witness credibility and the weight of any conflicting evidence, see Ludlum v. Rothman, 503 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we are unable to discern any factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion that the husband’s use of these monies was unexplained. Even though the trial court clearly was authorized not to believe the husband’s testimony r…
-
Tuttle v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd., 551 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…granting a new trial. The court’s third and fourth reasons are improper grounds for granting a new trial.4 A trial court may not invade the province of the jury by reweighing the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. See Ludlum v. Rothman, 503 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Lopez v. Cohen, 406 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Certainly, the trial court may not act as a “seventh juror with veto power.” Wackenhut, 359 So. 2d at…
-
Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo, 711 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…iami Dolphins, Ltd., 551 So. 2d 477, 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(“A trial court may not invade the province of the jury by reweighing the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence”). As the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated in Ludlum v. Rothman, 503 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987): There was sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict and it should not have been nullified even though the trial court obviously thought the plaintiff should have prevailed. Id. at 975. The trial court further found…
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Perenic v. Castelli, 353 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Kashino v. Morell, 449 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)