STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE CABOVERDE, 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.
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because the evidence did not clearly favor one side.
State Farm appealed an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in its favor. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse…
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
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals an order granting a new trial, following a jury verdict in favor of State Farm. A trial court’s order granting a new trial should not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Brown v. Estate of A.P. Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla. 2000).
When a trial judge “concludes that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, it is his duty to grant a new trial, and he should always do that if the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record.” Id. at 496, (quoting Cloud v. Fallís, 110 So.2d 669, 673 (Fla.1959)). The trial court has broad discretion in this regard, and the mere existence of competent substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict does not necessarily demonstrate an abuse of that discretion. Brown, 749 So.2d at 497.
However, as this Court has previously recognized, “the trial judge should refrain from acting as an additional juror.” Midtown Enterps, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 785 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The role of the trial judge is not to substitute his or her own verdict for that of the jury, but to avoid what, in the judge’s trained and experience judgment, is an unjust verdict.” Brown, 749 So.2d at 495. Where the “evidence was not manifestly weighted to either side,” a trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial may be reversed. See Hernandez v. Feliciano, 890 So.2d 401, 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Having considered the entire record, together with the trial court’s findings in its order granting a new trial, a clear showing has been made that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. We therefore vacate the order granting a new trial, and remand this cause with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meyers v. Bonneva Shontz, 251 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Faye Davis, 307 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…t is within the jury’s province to resolve that conflict, and the trial court may not act as a seventh juror with a “veto” power to decide that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, 65 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Midtown Enterps, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 785 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). “In deciding whether the evidence manifestly weighs against the verdict, the trial court must examine all of the evidence—giving cons…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Rupert B. Brown v. The Est. OF A.P. Stuckey, Sr., 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)
- Midtown Enters., Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 785 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Ingrid Hernandez v. Feliciano, 890 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)