HARDEE MANUFACTURING CO. AND HARSCO CORP., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN JOSEY AND RUTH JOSEY, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.
The plaintiff rear-ended a truck hauling one of the defendant's trailers, and the jury found the defendants twenty-five percent liable. The defendants…
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 Bifurcation Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Josey, plaintiff, while operating a small pick-up truck, rear-ended another truck which was hauling one of the defendant’s dump trailers. In finding the defendants twenty-five percent liable, the jury apparently agreed with the plaintiffs’ expert that faulty rear light configurations on the trailer combined with inclement weather and negligence on the part of John Josey to cause the accident.
The defendants’ first contention in this appeal from a jury verdict is that the court abused its discretion in denying a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and dam ages. It is suggested that in a case such as this where (1) a jury is likely to be influenced by sympathy owing to the nature of the injury, i.e., severe brain damage, and (2) the issue of liability is very close, fairness dictates that the liability issue be tried separately.
We are persuaded by the plaintiffs’ response that an abuse of discretion is not shown here since factors concerning the cause and nature of the injuries would, unavoidably, have been adduced at a separate trial on liability. The general rule, applicable here, is that a trial judge’s exercise of discretion on a severance question will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. School Bd. of Broward County v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Pla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1146 (Pla. 1981). There is no showing of an abuse of discretion and no other reversible error is demonstrated by the five remaining points on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…laim, counterclaim, or third-party claim. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270(b).1 “The general rule, ... is that a trial judge’s exercise of discretion on a severance question will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse.” See Hardee Mfg. Co. v. Josey, 535 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Although the matter of separation of the issues to be tried rests in the trial court’s discretion, “a single trial generally tends to lessen the delay, expense and inconvenience to all concerned, and the courts have emphasiz…
-
Roseman v. Town Square Ass'n, Inc., 810 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Microclimate Sales Co. v. Doherty, 731 So. 2d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hardee Mfg. Co. v. Josey, 535 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Second, “bifurcation is generally proper absent a specific threat of inconsistent verdicts or prejudice to a party.” Microclimate Sales Co., 731 So. 2d at 858; see also Hardee Mfg. Co., 535 So. 2d at 656 (holding there is no…
-
ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Coucher, 837 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Microclimate Sales Co., Inc. v. Doherty, 731 So. 2d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So .2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hardee Mfg. Co. v. Josey, 535 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The trial court followed the bifurcation protocol established by the Florida Supreme Court in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla.1994). In Grace, the supreme court held that when there is a claim for punitive d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)