HARRY ORCHARD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CHARLOTTE HARBOR & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 affirmed a trial court's order granting a new trial in a negligence case involving fire damage to an orange grove, holding that appellate courts must defer to a trial court's broad discretion in granting new trials when evidence is in sharp conflict.
The appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's decision to grant a new trial based on conflicting evidence, as the trial court possesses superior opportunities to gauge witness credibility and trial circumstances that cannot be fully captured in the written record.
“it does not follow that we should interfere with that broad discretion necessarily vested in that court with its superior opportunities for gauging the credibility of the witnesses personally present, and the many minor incidents of the trial impossible of incorporation into the written record.”
Establishes the standard of appellate review for new trial orders, emphasizing deference to trial courts' discretion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry Orchard sued Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company for negligently setting fire to his orange grove. A jury returned a verdict for Orchard…
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 Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This writ of error is directed' to an order granting a new trial, following a verdict for the plaintiff Harry Orchard, under a declaration charging the railway company with negligently setting fire to his orange grove. The motion for a new trial contained thirty-eight grounds, and was sustained generally.
The plaintiff in error entirely misconceives the rule of law governing appellate courts in reviewing the order of trial courts in the granting of new trials. A clear statement of the rule was made by this court in Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 South. Rep. 283, and this rule has governed this court in many published opinions, without any departure or modification. See cases cited in Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co. 56 Fla. 452, 47 South. Rep. 1; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825, and Beverly v. Hardaway, decided this term. Assuming, as is contended by the plaintiff in error, that the evidence is such that we would not have interfered with the verdict had it met with the approval of the trial court, it does not follow that we should interfere with that broad discretion necessarily vested in that court with its superior opportunities for gauging the credibility of the witnesses personally present, and the many minor incidents of the trial impossible of incorporation into the written record.
There was a sharp conflict in the testimony as to whether the fire was set out by the defendant railway company; further than the ascertainment of this conflict we need not go, and the order setting aside the first verdict based upon such conflicting evidence and granting a new' trial will not be interfered with.
Order affirmed. Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Theola Ruff v. Georgia, 67 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1914)…dge abused his discretion in granting such new trial, his ruling will not be disturbed. Dominquez v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company, 62 Fla. 148, 56 South. Rep. 682; [*237] Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994; Orchard v. C. H. & N. R. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 South. Rep. 717. Also see Reddick v. Joseph, 35 Fla. 65, 15 South. Rep. 781; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 South. Rep. 286; Baggett v. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co., 45 Fla. 184, 34 South. Rep. 564; Citizens’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Spencer, 46 Fla. 25…
-
Harrison v. Carroll H. Frink, 75 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1918)…ss it affirmatively appears that there has been an abuse of [*27] judicial discretion or that some settled principle of law has been violated. Ruff v. Georgia, S. & F. R. Co., 67 Fla. 224, 64 South. Rep. 782; Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 South. Rep. 717; Dunnellon Phosphate Co., v. Crystal River Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 131, 58 South. Rep. 786; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994. No question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record or of the Circuit Court is presented…
-
Cheney v. Roberts, 77 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1919)…h. Rep. 49; Acosta v. Gingles, 65 Fla. 507, 62 South. Rep. 582. Where there is a sharp conflict in the evidence upon a vital point, an order granting a new trial upon the first verdict will not be disturbed. Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 South. Rep. 717; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 South. Rep. 994; Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 South. Rep. 283; Carney v. Stringfellow, supra. One of the grounds of the motion for new trial is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence,…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 56 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1908)
- Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1908)
- Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1901)