JAMES W. KIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE WILSON, APPELLEE
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 because the record was incomplete, preventing a review of whether the jury's verdict was excessive.
Yes, the appellate court affirmed the order granting a new trial because the incomplete record prevented a review of the trial court's decision.
“The granting of a remittitur by a trial judge involves his consideration of the entire record”
Establishes the standard for reviewing remittitur orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was awarded $7,500 in a personal injury action. The trial court ordered a remittitur of $3,500 or a new trial, finding the verdict to be…
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 Excessiveness Of Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial following the rendition of a verdict for $7,500 in favor of the plaintiff in a personal injury action. The trial court ordered a remittitur of $3,500 or a new trial. The ground recited in the order was that the verdict was shocking to the court.
The granting of a remittitur by a trial judge involves his consideration of the entire record (Kovacs v. Venetian Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 611), and on appeal from an order granting a new trial for excessiveness it is necessary to look to the record to determine whether ex-cessiveness is disclosed. Bach v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706; Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 885. We are unable to do that here because the record presented is incomplete. Substantial portions of the evidence were omitted. See Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 425; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801; Pan American Metal Products, Inc. v. Healey, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 96. Those reasons which require affirmance here are aided by the presumption in favor of correctness of the ruling granting new trial. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Johnson v. Roberts, 79 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1955)
- Athas S. Curtis v. Simon, 138 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Bach v. Miami Transit Co., 129 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Kovacs v. Venetian Sedan Serv., Inc., 108 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Kraus v. Osteen, 135 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)