JAMES ALLEN NASH, AND JANICE MARIE NASH, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINN DIXIE MONTGOMERY, INC., 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 court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial following a jury verdict of $1,000,000 for plaintiffs, finding the verdict was excessive and resulted from jury passion or prejudice, though noting one ground cited by the trial judge was improper.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial when the jury verdict is excessive and appears to result from passion or prejudice, even if individual grounds alone might be insufficient.
[1] A trial court may grant a new trial based on the cumulative effect of multiple grounds, including verdict excessiveness and jury passion or prejudice, without abusing its…
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 intelligence“the amount of the verdict cannot be sustained by any view of the evidence and apparently resulted from the jury being improperly influenced by passion or prejudice”
Court's analysis of why the verdict was excessive and warranted a new trial
Plaintiffs James Allen Nash and Janice Marie Nash obtained a jury verdict of $1,000,000 against Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc., but the trial court grant…
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 Passion And Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, the plaintiffs below, appeal the lower court’s grant of a new trial following a jury verdict in plaintiffs’ favor and a damage award of $1,000,000. We affirm.
The trial court discussed several grounds for its decision to grant a new trial, including. the excessiveness of the verdict. Although each of the cited grounds, considered alone, might not constitute a sufficient basis for the grant of a new trial, considering the cumulative effect of issues raised, we conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred in the court’s decision to grant a new trial. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1985). In particular we note that the amount of the verdict cannot be sustained by any view of the evidence and apparently resulted from the jury being improperly influenced by passion or prejudice. Zambrano v. Devanesan, 484 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA) review denied 494 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1986). We further note, however, that one of the grounds cited by the trial judge was clearly improper. In its order granting the defendant’s new trial motion the court sua sponte cited the plaintiffs’ counsel’s overly emotional closing argument as one of the most important reasons a new trial was warranted, stating that counsel had employed this tactic in other trials. Such an observation regarding counsel’s behavior in other proceedings as part of the new trial order was improper. Nevertheless, considering all the grounds set forth in the order, the grant of a new trial was within the lower court’s discretion, and is
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)
- Zambrano v. Jegadees D. Devanesan, M.D., 484 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)