HAROLD DALE LINDON, APPELLANT,
v.
DALTON HOTEL CORPORATION AND ROY B. DALTON, JR., APPELLEES
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.
Harold Lindon appeals a successor judge's order granting a new trial on all issues after the original jury verdict favored Lindon. The appellate court reversed, finding that a successor judge reviewing a record is not in a better position than an appellate court to determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict in Lindon's favor.
The court reversed the successor judge's order granting a new trial on all issues, holding that the successor judge abused its discretion because the record contained evidence sufficient to support a verdict in Lindon's favor, particularly where conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses existed.
[1] A successor judge reviewing a motion for a new trial is in no better position than an appellate court to make the decision.
[2] A jury's verdict is generally not against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses.
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 same is not true when a successor judge is the one reviewing the record and making a determination as to a new trial. The successor judge is in no better position than an appellate court to make the decision.”
Establishes the reduced deference given to successor judges on new trial motions compared to original trial judges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a jury verdict in favor of Lindon against Dalton Hotel Corporation and Roy B. Dalton, Jr. After the initial trial court granted a d…
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 Conflicting Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
In Lindon I, 1 this Court reversed the trial court’s order granting a directed verdict and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial on damages or a determination of Dalton’s motion for a new trial. On remand, a successor judge heard Dalton’s motion for new trial and, after reviewing the record, granted the motion requiring a new trial on all issues. It is from this order that Lindon appeals. Lin-don contends that there was sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to find in his favor on the merits of his claim. We agree and reverse.
The trial judge has broad discretion in granting a new trial. An appellate court gives great deference to the trial judge’s ruling on a new trial motion because the trial judge has heard all the evidence, had an opportunity to view the witnesses, and was able to observe their *987demeanor and form opinions as to their credibility. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669, 673 (Fla.1959).
The same is not true when a successor judge is the one reviewing the record and making a determination as to a new trial. The successor judge is in no better position than an appellate court to make the decision. Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267, 14 So.2d 398, 402 (1943); Nat’l Healthcorp, Ltd. Partnership v. Cascio, 725 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). A successor judge in this case reviewed the record and made a determination that the verdict in favor of Lindon was against the manifest weight of the evidence and granted a new trial on all issues. However, our review of the record reveals that there was evidence in the record to support a verdict in favor of Lindon. A jury’s verdict is generally not against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses. See Cascio, 725 So.2d at 1194 (citing Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So.2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)).
We find that the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on all issues and remand this case for a trial on damages only as set forth in Lindon I.
REVERSED and REMANDED for NEW TRIAL with INSTRUCTIONS.
SAWAYA, TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JEB Bachman v. Oliveros, 293 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…ce is clear, obvious, and not conflicting. DeWitt, 770 So. 2d at 711. “A jury’s verdict is generally not against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses.” Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 113 So. 3d 985, 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Nat’l Healthcorp Ltd. P’ship v. Cascio, 752 So. 2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Therefore, we must look at the evidence presented as to each injury category to 7 determine whether the trial court abused its discre…
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Stimpson, 115 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…that the cruise control system was negligently designed. Additionally, “[a] jury’s verdict is generally not against the manifest weight of evidence if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses.” Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 113 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA March 8, 2013). REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur. . See § 95.03l(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). . See § 95.03l(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2003). . Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth se…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores v. Winters, 272 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…se the order awarding a new trial was entered by a successor judge on the basis of a study of the record, the discretion of the trial court to set aside the jury’s verdict is significantly diminished in this case.”); Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 113 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Winn-Dixie’s point is well taken but ultimately unavailing: Even applying this narrowed abuse of discretion standard, we would affirm the successor judge’s order. If the appellate court determines that reasonable people cou…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1943)
- Fitzgerald v. Molle-Teeters, 520 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp. & Roy B. Dalton, Jr., 49 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Nat'l Healthcorp Ltd. P'ship v. Cascio, 725 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)