ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CARRIE I. DAUGHERTY, 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.
Allstate appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial in an uninsured motorist damages case, arguing the jury verdict was adequate and supported by the record. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by substituting its view of the evidence for the jury's without proper justification.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial because it failed to specify the basis for its conclusion that the verdict was inadequate and inconsistent, the record did not suggest the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the record supported the jury's verdict. The trial court impermissibly substituted its own view of the evidence for that of the jury.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial based on a verdict's inadequacy or inconsistency with the proofs when the record supports the jury's verdict a…
[2] A trial court should not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the jury when reviewing a verdict.
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 lower court substituted its view of the evidence for that of the jury. Thus, the lower court abused its discretion in ordering the new trial.”
Establishes the core holding that substituting judicial judgment for jury judgment on evidence is an abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarrie Daugherty was injured in an automobile accident and filed a claim with her uninsured motorist carrier, Allstate. At trial, virtually all aspect…
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 Inadequate Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Appellant, Allstate Insurance Company [“Allstate”], appeals the order of the lower court granting a new trial to appellee, Carrie Daugherty [“Daugherty”], to determine the amount of damages she suffered in an automobile accident. Allstate is Daugherty’s uninsured motorist carrier. The lower court granted the motion for new trial for two stated reasons: (1) that the verdict was inadequate as a matter of law and (2) that the verdict was legally inconsistent with the proofs. No facts or other explanation was given and since the only issue tried was damages, the two reasons framed by the trial court appear to us to be essentially the same.1
We have reviewed the record and cannot sustain the trial court’s decision. Virtually all aspects of Daugherty’s injuries and resulting damages were controverted at trial. Indeed, Daugherty contends that there was such a volume of testimony that the jury was either confused by it or was unwilling to undertake the time and effort necessary to sort it out. The number of experts for each side was relatively even, with five on one side and six on the other. Even though the trial court may have found some of the evidence more relevant and some of the witnesses more credible than others, the jury evidently chose to weigh the evidence differently. Because the lower court failed to specify the basis for its conclusion that the verdict was inadequate and inconsistent, because our review of the record does not suggest that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerations outside the record, and because the record will support the jury’s verdict, we are bound to conclude that the lower court substituted its view of the evidence for that of the jury. Thus, the lower court abused its discretion in ordering the new trial. Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 529 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in accordance with the verdict.2
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . On appeal, Allstate contends that "inconsistency” is waived unless brought to the court's attention prior to the discharge of the jury. Although it is true that the jury failed to award Daugherty damages for future medical expenses and future pain and suffering even though the jury found that Daugherty had suffered a permanent injury as a result of the accident, the lower court found no internal inconsistency in the verdict, only an inconsistency with the proofs. An internal inconsistency would have to be raised prior to the jury's discharge.
. We recognize the rule in Prime Motor Inns v. Waltman, 480 So. 2d 88 (Fla.1985) that failure of the lower court to state grounds for granting a new trial requires remand for the statement of specific reasons. In this case, however, reasons were given, although in conclusory rather than factual form. Given this record, we can see no purpose in a remand for further specificity. Cf. Lindenfield v. Dorazio by Dorazio, 606 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…e of special interrogatories in tort cases with the advent of special interrogatories. See Cowen v. Thornton, 621 So. 2d 684, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1994); see also Simpson. But see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (distinguishing between internal inconsistencies in verdict and inconsistency with proof). The second.problem arising from the use of special interrogatories to itemize damages is the standard under which the court should r…
-
Simpson v. Julita Stone, 662 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ial on the basis of inadequacy. Moreover, we note that defendant Stone, as well as the trial court, could have sought to minimize the risk of another trial by raising this issue prior to the discharge of the jury. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So. 2d 612, 613 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Cowen, 621 So. 2d at 688 (Altenbernd, J., concurring); Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church, 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We accordingly reject Stone’s claim that the Simpsons waived their right to contest t…
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Stimpson, 115 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…unds: (1) fundamental error, and (2) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Each ground will be addressed separately. A trial court’s grant of a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). First, as to the court’s finding of fundamental error, in Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), our court explained the concept of fundamental error as it applies to civil lawsuits. Citing Hagan v. Sun Ba…
Authorities Cited
- Prime Motor Inns, Inc. v. Waltman, 480 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1985)
- Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Lindenfield v. Dorazio, 606 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)