JOHN S. SKOG, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA; AND ROBERT GEORGE MOORE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial, finding sufficient procedural errors to support the decision.
A jury found for the plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from a car collision. The trial judge granted the defendant's motion for a new tria…
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 Discovery Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a personal injury action. The complaint alleged injuries arising out of an automobile collision at a street intersection in the City of Miami. The jury found for the plaintiff and the trial judge granted the new trial upon four separate grounds as follows:
1. The trial judge’s failure to sustain objection to opinion testimony of a police officer as to which vehicle first entered the intersection.
2. The court’s failure to instruct upon an ordinance which is found to be applicable.
3. The court’s failure to grant a mistrial for certain happenings in the course of the trial which the trial judge concluded may have improperly influenced the jury.
4. The trial judge’s conclusion that the defendant did not receive a fair trial because he was misled upon discovery procedures.
*26In reviewing the grounds designated by the trial judge in his order granting the motion for new trial, we find that those grounds relating to errors in procedure, which deprived one of the parties of a fair trial, are sufficient to support the order appealed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marson v. Dadeland Rent-A-Car, Inc., 408 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…re there were issues as to negligence of the defendant-driver and others as well as a charge of comparative negligence on the part of the deceased, in fairness to all parties the matter should be re-tried on all issues. Skog v. Chrysler Corporation, 135 So. 2d 25 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); Compare, North Dade Imported Motors, Inc. v. Brundage Motors, Inc., 221 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Florida Power Corporation v. Smith, 202 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Bell v. Tarvin, 163 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Cob…