JOSE RAUL ANGELES-DELGADO
v.
JULIO COSTA BENITEZ
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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order granting a new trial in a negligence case, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by finding the jury verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence when conflicting expert testimony existed on key issues.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. When conflicting evidence exists, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury, and a verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence absent clear, obvious, and indisputable evidence to the contrary.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in granting a new trial based on the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence when the record contains conflicting ex…
[2] For a jury verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence warranting reversal, the evidence must be clear, obvious, and indisputable; the weight given to confl…
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“For a verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, so as to warrant a new trial, the evidence must be clear, obvious, and indisputable; where there is conflicting evidence, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury.”
Establishes the legal standard for overturning a jury verdict on manifest weight grounds and confirms that conflicting evidence should be resolved by the jury, not the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJessica Carrillo, operating a vehicle owned by Jose Raul Angeles-Delgado, collided with Julio Costa Benitez's bicycle. Benitez sued for negligence and…
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 Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
FERNANDEZ, J.
Jose Raul Angeles-Delgado and Jessica Carrillo (“Appellants”) appeal the trial court’s order granting Julio Costa Benitez’s (“Benitez”) motion for new trial. We reverse the order granting a new trial, as the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict and enter judgment consistent with the verdict.
Benitez filed an action against Appellants alleging that Carrillo acted negligently when, while operating Angeles-Delgado’s car, she collided with Benitez’s bicycle allegedly causing Benitez permanent bodily injury. Appellants denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses. The case proceeded to trial on the issues of liability, causation, and noneconomic damages.
At trial, the parties’ experts disagreed as to the method used to measure the tire skid marks of the vehicle, which resulted in differing testimony as to whether Carrillo was speeding and whether she could have avoided hitting Benitez. The jury returned a verdict finding Appellants not negligent. The jury did not reach the question of damages. The jury was polled, and each juror indicated that this was his or her verdict. Subsequently, Benitez moved for a new trial arguing that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, claiming that the jury was deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence. Appellants responded that a new trial was not warranted because there was conflicting evidence regarding Carrillo’s negligence. The trial court entered an initial order simply granting a new trial and, after a motion for reconsideration, entered an order including the court’s reasoning as is required by the applicable rules.
An order granting a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Miami-Dade Cty. v. Davis, 307 So. 3d 883, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Even though the trial court is given a high level of discretion given its superior vantage point, the trial judge cannot assert himself or herself as an additional juror if he or she disagrees with the jury’s verdict. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 496 (Fla. 1999).
Based on the trial court’s reasoning provided in the order, we disagree with the trial court that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court had concerns regarding Carrillo’s testimony that she did not see Benitez before hitting him when both parties’ experts stated that she had to have seen him due to her breaking before impact.1 The trial court
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rupert B. Brown v. The Est. OF A.P. Stuckey, Sr., 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)
- Harlan Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- 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)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Faye Davis, 307 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Aileen v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Diaz v. Alvarez (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)