REMSBERG
v.
MOSLEY
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed an order granting a new trial solely on damages in a personal injury case, holding that such a limited new trial is improper when liability and damages are intertwined.
No, a circuit court cannot grant a new trial limited solely to damages unless liability is clearly shown and does not need to be retried. In this case, the issues were too intertwined for a limited new trial.
[1] A new trial limited to damages only is improper in a personal injury action when the pleadings reveal that liability and damages issues are so interrelated that a damages…
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“A new trial on the question of damages only should not be granted unless liability on the part of defendant is clearly shown and it is not deemed necessary for any reason to try that issue again.”
This quote establishes the general rule for when a new trial can be limited to damages.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed an order from the Circuit Court that granted a new trial limited to the issue of damages only in a personal injury action. The …
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 Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Galatis & Kirsch, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. TERRELL, Justice.
This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court granting a new trial in a personal injury action limited to the question of damages only.
In Porter v. Gordon, Fla., 46 So. 2d 19, we pointed out the reasons why a circuit court was without power to grant such motion. In the last cited case we affirmed the order granting the new trial but required the case to be tried de novo on the issues presented in the cause, reason for this being, that it did not clearly appear that the question of damages was entirely separate and distinct from other issues, and that a new trial could be had without the danger of confusing damages with other issues. A new trial on the question of damages only should not be granted unless liability on the part of defendant is clearly shown and it is not deemed necessary for any reason to try that issue again.
In the case at bar we are confronted only with the record proper. The evidence was not brought up. The pleadings reveal issues that are so related to the question of damages that we think the new trial should be on the merits, both as to liability and the amount of damages.
The judgment is therefore reversed on authority of Porter v. Gordon last cited. It is so ordered.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN, THOMAS, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
MATHEWS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953)…he true facts as shown by the evidence. Where a verdict is so excessive as to indicate that other considerations have influenced the jury, justice has been thwarted and the verdict cannot be sanctioned. In the case of Remsberg v. Mosley, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 432, 433, this court said that a new trial “on the question of damages only should not be granted unless liability on the part of defendant is clearly shown and it is not deemed necessary for any reason to try that issue again”. In the case at bar, liab…
-
Ursula H. Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…the motion for rehearing raised some question about it. The cases cited in the second Arab Termite appeal in this court on the denial of the motion for rehearing no longer have any application to this issue. The supreme court in Remsberg v. Mosley, 58 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1952) and Porter v. Gordon, 46 So. 2d 19 (Fla.1950), which Remsberg relies on, both dealt with the lack of authority of a trial court to divide the issues of liability and damages in ordering a new trial. However, those cases were decided befor…
-
Remsberg v. Mosley, 58 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1952)…58 So. 2d 432 (1952) REMSBERG v. MOSLEY. Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc. April 25, 1952. *433 C.L. Chancey, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Galatis & Kirsch, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. TERRELL, Justice. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Remsberg v. Mosley, 58 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1952)
- Porter v. Gordon, 46 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1950)