HOME DEPOT U.S.A. COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
HOLLY L. TAYLOR AND DENNIS E. TAYLOR, JR., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Home Depot appealed an order granting a new trial on damages and directing a verdict on comparative negligence in a personal injury case. The court affirmed the new trial but reversed the directed verdict on liability, requiring a new trial on both liability and damages because the jury must determine the degree of comparative negligence.
The court held that the order granting a new trial on damages must comply with statutory requirements and Wackenhut standards even when based on rejection of an additur, and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on comparative negligence because jury questions of fact existed regarding liability and the degree of relative fault.
[1] An order granting a new trial must set forth specific sufficient grounds, even when based on a defendant's rejection of an additur.
[2] A trial court errs by directing a verdict on comparative negligence when there is evidence from which a jury could find the plaintiff partially at fault.
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“if a trial judge orders an additur, and the defendant rejects the additur, then the court must order a new trial on damages, but the trial court must still set out in the order granting the new trial specific sufficient grounds for the award of new trial”
Establishes the statutory requirement that new trial orders based on additur rejection must still comply with Wackenhut standards and provide specific grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolly and Dennis Taylor were injured in an incident involving a shopping cart at Home Depot. The evidence showed that Taylor may have loaded her shopp…
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 Order Granting New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
[*480] DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial on damages only in a personal injury case and an order directing a verdict on an issue regarding liability.
As to the order granting a new trial, this case is controlled by Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So. 2d 189 (Fla.1996) where our supreme court held that orders granting a new trial must comply with the dictates of Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978) even though the order is based upon a defendant’s rejection of an order of additur. That is, under the statute, section 768.44, Florida Statutes, if a trial judge orders an additur, and the defendant rejects the additur, then the court must order a new trial on damages, but the trial court must still set out in the order granting the new trial specific sufficient grounds for the award of new trial. It is insufficient to just order a new trial based upon the rejection of a remittitur or an additur. So the order granting a new trial on damages should be quashed on this basis.
However, we find error in the trial court having directed a verdict for appellee on the issue of her comparative negligence, so a new trial on both liability and damages must be had anyway. There is some evidence in the record that perhaps appellee loaded her shopping cart in such a fashion that she was unable to control it when it passed over a crack or expansion joint in the floor. There is also evidence that appellee was aware that she should have used a flatbed cart, instead of a basket cart, to load the boxes of tile for transport to her vehicle. There was also evidence that appellee was pulling the cart rather than pushing it, as is the usual, and perhaps proper, way to operate it. Because the jury must determine who was at fault, and the degree of relative fault, it was error to take that decision from them.
There is a rule used by courts of appeal which is called the “tipsy coachman” rule. It comes to us from Georgia, Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga. 345, by the way of our supreme court in Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1963).
The pupil of impulse, it fore’d him along,
His conduct still right, with his argument wrong;
Still aiming at honour, yet fearing to roam,
The coachman was tipsy, the chariot drove home; ...
The trial judge made the right decision, albeit for the wrong reason, so we affirm the order granting the new trial, but determine the new trial must be for both liability and damages.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)…owas, 348 So. 2d 13, 16 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); First Nat’l Bank v. Morse, 248 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). The Fourth District Court of Appeal has referred to this principle as the “tipsy coachman” rule. See Home Depot U.S.A. Co. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).8 If an appellate court, in considering whether to uphold or overturn a lower court’s judgment, is not limited to consideration of the reasons given by the trial court but rather must affirm the judgment if it is legally co…1 / 2
-
Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)…so ordered. ANSTEAD, C.J., SHAW, and QUINCE, JJ., and HARDING, Senior Justice, concur. LEWIS, J., concurs in result only. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). . In Home Depot U.S.A. Co. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the Fifth District explained the derivation of the "tipsy coachman rule” as follows: There is a rule used by courts of appeal which is called the "tipsy coachman” rule. It comes to us from Georgia, Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga. 34…
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…been support for the alternate theory or principle of law in the record before the trial court.” Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 907 (Fla.2002). This principle, referred to as the “tipsy coachman” rule, see Home Depot U.S.A. Co., Inc. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), arises from the presumption of correctness with which the judgment of the trial court is clothed. See Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222, 225 (Fla.1962). In our view, the record here supports affirmance on a theory diffe…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Carraway v. Armour & Co. & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1963)
- Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1996)