DONALD E. CLOUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM CLYDE CHRISTOPHER AND TINA CHRISTOPHER, ETC., 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.
Clough appeals from a trial court order granting a new trial to the plaintiffs in a personal injury action. The trial judge found that the jury's verdict—that Christopher caused his own injuries—was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, applying the abuse of discretion standard and finding the trial judge's decision was reasonable.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. The trial judge made a specific finding that the manifest weight of the evidence was contrary to the jury verdict, which is sufficient to support a new trial order. The appellate court cannot say reasonable persons could not have agreed with the trial judge's assessment.
[1] A trial court may grant a new trial when the jury's finding is against the manifest weight and import of the evidence.
[2] Appellate review of an order granting a new trial is conducted under an abuse of discretion standard, applying a reasonableness test.
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 judge must make a specific finding that the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict.”
Establishes the required standard for granting a new trial; mere evidence supporting the verdict is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClough was the defendant in a personal injury action brought by William Christopher and his mother, Tina Christopher. A jury found that Christopher wa…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Clough, the defendant in a personal injury action, appeals from an order granting a new trial to the plaintiffs, William Christopher and his mother, Tina Christopher. The trial judge ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, because the jury’s finding that Christopher was the sole cause of his injuries was against the manifest weight and import of the evidence. The court held fundamental error occurred when the defense argued that Clough had never been issued a traffic citation in all of his years of driving, citing Elsass v. Hankey, 662 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Wé affirm.
The standard of review on appeal is an abuse of discretion test. Due to the trial judge’s favored vantage point, this test is highly differential:
In reviewing [an order for a new trial] the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his [or her] discretion. If reasonable [persons] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.
E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla.1997), quoting Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla.1980).
The difficulty of harmonizing that concept with the also well-established doctrine that the trial .judge must not sit as a “seventh juror” and substitute his or her own resolution of factual issues for that of the jury,1 has been the subject of frequent comments.2 However, the mere showing that there was evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not by itself demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1988). The trial judge must make a specific finding that the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict. Smith, 525 So. 2d at 869. The trial judge did so in this case and we cannot, as an appellate panel, say reasonable persons could not have agreed with him. We do not reach the Els ass issue.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, J., and SCHEB, J.M., Senior Judge, concur. . E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1997); Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So. 2d 189 (Fla.1996); Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1988).
. See Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc. v. Poole, 683 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), Harris, J., concurring ("The supreme court recognizes that it is difficult for the appellate court to harmonize the law concerning the trial court’s role in granting a new trial and our responsibility on appeal to review the action of the trial judge in granting the new trial. On the one hand, the trial court is not to substitute its opinion for that of the jury; on the other hand, the trial court’s decision must be affirmed if a reasonable person could agree with it.”); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Pope, 532 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), Schwartz, CJ., dissenting ("The appellate review of a new trial order ... had long been governed by two apparently contradictory principles and sets of supporting decisions, both of which are often applied by the same court in the same year and, sometimes, even cited in the same opinion.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citrus Cnty. v. McQUILLIN, 840 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…the trial court.1 As the appellate court, we must address the question whether the trial court abused its discretion in making those rulings. DeWitt v. Maruhachi Ceramics of America, Inc., 770 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Clough v. Christopher, 711 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial judge’s determinations, there is no abuse of discretion. Clough. With regard to the jury’s determination that Citrus County was twenty percent responsible for…
-
Dewitt v. Maruhachi Ceramics OF Am., Inc., 770 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ted below. Indeed that is the question addressed to the trial court on motion for a new trial.1 Rather, the appellate court is limited to considering whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial. Clough v. Christopher, 711 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Brafman v. Rybalka, 673 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1985). In order for us to reach that conclusion, the evidence must be clear and obvious, and not conflicting, as in…
-
Tenny v. Allen, 858 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ppellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Jordan v. Brown, 855 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Clough v. Christopher, 711 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In contrast, the standard of review on appeal of the trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict is the same as the test used by the trial court in ruling on that motion. Marriott International, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- THE FLA. BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES REGULATING THE FLA. BAR (RULE 1-4.3, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Boyd B. Farnes, 697 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1997)
- Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1996)
- Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Pope, 532 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Elsass v. Hankey, 662 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc. v. Poole, 683 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)