CATHERINE G. FETZER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANE O. COX, APPELLANT,
v.
BREMER BRACE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A trial court ordered a new trial or remittitur after a jury verdict of $150,000 in a negligence action, reducing damages to $18,500. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court failed to provide sufficient reasons for concluding the verdict was excessive and improperly substituted its judgment for the jury's on disputed factual issues regarding the plaintiff's injuries and pain and suffering.
The trial court's order requiring a new trial or remittitur was reversed because the trial court failed to set forth sufficient reasons supporting its determination that the verdict was excessive or improper. On disputed factual issues such as the extent of injuries and pain and suffering, it was the jury's province to resolve the conflicts in evidence, not the trial court's.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a new trial based on an erroneous conclusion that conflicting evidence presented to the jury was not a factual dispute for…
[2] A trial court must set forth sufficient reasons supporting its determination that a jury verdict is excessive or otherwise improper.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court failed to set forth sufficient reasons supporting its determination that the jury verdict whs excessive or otherwise improper, or that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of trial court orders granting new trial and the trial court's failure to meet that standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJane O. Cox initiated a negligence lawsuit against Bremer Brace of Florida, Inc. A jury returned a verdict assessing damages at $150,000. Cox subseque…
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 Province Of The Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Catherine G. Fetzer received a jury verdict in a negligence action assessing damages at $150,000. Post-trial, the trial court entered an order requiring a remittitur, reducing the damage assessment to $18,500, or in the alternative, granting a new trial. Fetzer declined the remittitur and appealed the order requiring a new trial. We reverse.
After exhaustively reviewing the facts of this case, compared with the reasons advanced by the trial court in its order, we conclude that the trial court failed to set forth sufficient reasons supporting its determination that the jury verdict whs excessive or otherwise improper, or that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record. We believe the trial court reached the decision to order a new trial based upon its erroneous conclusion that the injuries of the woman who commenced this lawsuit1 had healed and she did not undergo any pain or suffering as a result of those injuries. It is clear that the evidence on both of these material factual issues was in conflict, as counsel for Bremer Brace has forthrightly acknowledged in this appeal, and it was the province of the jury to determine these factual disputes.
We find it unnecessary to address Fetzer’s argument on appeal that the trial court erred in granting a new trial based upon post-trial assertions of racial prejudice never raised during trial,2 as Bremer Brace has conceded that it cannot assert for the first time in a motion for new trial that the verdict was the result of racial prejudice and improper jury selection. Since the trial court’s order does not expressly address any alleged racial prejudice, we find no need for further discussion on this point.
Accordingly, the order on appeal is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED for entry of a final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict.
SMITH, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur. . Jane O. Cox, the original plaintiff in this suit, passed away from a cause or causes unrelated to the condition of which she suffered due to Bremer’s negligence, and her daughter, Catherine G. Fetzer, personal representative of her estate, was substituted as plaintiff in this suit.
. Jane Cox was white. Her counsel in the trial proceedings below was black, and the jury chosen consisted of all black members. There is a charge in the motion for new trial filed below that counsel for Fetzer used his three peremptory challenges to strike white potential jurors. Also, there is a contention in the motion that counsel for Fetzer made race-based arguments to the jury.