TASHA MARIE SANTOS ALVAREZ, ETC.
v.
MIRIAM ACOSTA
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.
Appellant Tasha Marie Santos Alvarez appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial in a wrongful death case arising from a motor vehicle collision. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee Miriam Acosta, the driver whose vehicle collided with Alvarez's motorcycle, despite Acosta's admissions made during her deposition. Alvarez argued the jury was bound by Acosta's admissions and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. When conflicting evidence is presented at trial, it is the jury's function to weigh that evidence and resolve conflicts, and the verdict will not be reversed absent a complete absence of conflicting evidence and rational basis in the evidence to support it.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for new trial when the jury heard conflicting evidence at trial and rendered a verdict based on its weighi…
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“When the evidence is in conflict, as it was in this case, it is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence and resolve those conflicts. . . . Reversal of a jury verdict is appropriate only in the absence of conflicting evidence, when there is no rational basis in the evidence to support the verdict.”
Court's statement of the standard for reviewing jury verdicts in cases with conflicting evidence
A motorcycle operated by or involving Alvarez collided with a car driven by Miriam Acosta, resulting in a fatal crash. At trial, the jury was presente…
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 Jury'S Role In Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 8, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-640 Lower Tribunal No. 13-25846 ________________ Tasha Marie Santos Alvarez, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Miriam Acosta, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Law Offices of Oscar Syger, P.A., and Oscar Syger (Boca Raton), for appellant. Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Kansas R. Gooden and Allison C. Heim (Orlando), for appellee Miriam Acosta. Before EMAS, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant Tasha Marie Santos Alvarez’s motion for a new trial. The jury was presented with conflicting evidence as to whether appellee Miriam Acosta, the driver of a car that collided with a motorcycle, caused the fatal crash. This conflicting evidence included certain admissions made by Acosta in her deposition that was read to the jury at trial. Notwithstanding that evidence, the jury returned a verdict for Acosta, finding that she was not the cause of the accident. Alvarez argues that the jury was “bound” by Acosta’s admissions and that the jury’s verdict for Acosta was contrary to the evidence.
We review an order denying a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803, 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). We cannot reweigh the evidence or determine that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Graham Cos. v. Amado, 305 So. 3d 572, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial motion if there was conflicting evidence presented at trial and the jury’s verdict was the product of its weighing that evidence to resolve the conflicts. Weatherly, 31 So. 3d at 805-06; Rosario-Paredes v. J.C. Wrecker Serv., 975 So. 2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“We conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for new trial.
When the evidence is in conflict, as it was in this case, it is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence and resolve those conflicts. . . . Reversal of a jury verdict is appropriate only in the absence of conflicting evidence, when there is no rational basis in the evidence to support the verdict.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosalba Mora v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…lure to object to the verdict form and jury instructions also prevents us from revisiting the jury verdict . . . ‘the jury cannot be faulted for doing exactly what it was instructed to do.’” (quoting Plana, 990 So. 2d at 557)); Alvarez v. Acosta, 324 So. 3d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“We cannot reweigh the evidence or determine that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial motion if there was conflicting evidence p…
-
Teran v. Piloto (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Rosario-Paredes v. J.C. Wrecker Serv. & Bill Farmer, 975 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Robenson v. McNEIL, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- THE Graham Cos. v. Amado, 305 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)