ALLSTAR CLEANING SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA GRINWIS AND JOHN GRINWIS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's grant of a new trial in a slip-and-fall case, holding that a jury verdict for the defendant cleaning service was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where conflicting testimony existed.
A jury verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the record contains conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses, and the trial court may not grant a new trial based on disagreement with the jury's credibility determinations.
[1] A jury verdict supported by conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and a trial court abuses its discretion in g…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only when the evidence is clear, obvious, and indisputable.”
Standard for overturning jury verdict on manifest weight grounds
Allstar Cleaning Services was sued for failure to warn in a slip-and-fall case. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Allstar, but the trial court g…
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 Slip And Fall Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial after the jury returned its verdict in favor of Allstar Cleaning Services, Inc. in a failure to warn, slip and fall case. The trial court erroneously concluded that the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence. In this case, there was conflicting testimony regarding liability and injury causation from a number of witnesses. “A jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only when the evidence is clear, obvious, and indisputable.” Jones v. Stevenson, 598 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (internal quotation and citation omitted).. “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). “[W]here there is conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury.” Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So.2d 336, 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Nor can the order granting a new trial be sustained based upon the jurors’ questions as suggested by the trial court; there was nothing in the record to indicate that the jury’s verdict was the result of anything other than its consideration of the disputed evidence and the trial court’s instructions on the law.
Accordingly, we ■ reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter final judgment in favor of the Appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
TORPY, EDWARDS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Jones v. Stevenson, 598 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp. & Roy B. Dalton, Jr., 113 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)