DIXIE A. WRIGHT AND GEORGE W. WRIGHT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN MORIARTY, 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.
This case involves a personal injury claim from a rear-end collision where the jury awarded $1,500. The trial judge granted a new trial, believing the jury disregarded pain and future effects. The appellate court reversed, finding the jury's verdict was not demonstrably against the evidence and reinstating the original judgment.
No, the trial judge erred in granting a new trial. The appellate court held that the jury's verdict was not so contrary to the evidence as to warrant a new trial on those grounds.
“" * * * it having appeared to the Court that the verdict of the jury was for approximately the amount of special damages submitted by Plaintiff and that the testimony in the trial was uncontroverted that Plaintiff had suffered some pain and that his injury would have at least some effect on him in the future, and the Court being of the opinion that the jury disregarded or did not consider the aforementioned elements of damages, * * * "”
This quote details the trial judge's reasoning for granting the motion for a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs sued for personal injuries sustained in a rear-end collision, resulting in a whiplash injury. A jury awarded $1,500, a sum slightly exc…
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.
This is a personal injury matter arising out of a rear end collision, resulting in a whiplash injury. The jury verdict was in the sum of $1,500.00, just in excess of the alleged special damages. Subsequent to final judgment, the trial judge granted a motion for new trial upon the ground of:
******
“ * * * it having appeared to the Court that the verdict of the jury was for approximately the amount of special damages submitted by Plaintiff and that the testimony in the trial was uncontroverted that Plaintiff had suffered some pain and that his injury would have at least some effect on him in the future, and the Court being of the opinion that the jury disregarded or did not consider the aforementioned elements of damages, * * * ”
******
The defendants have appealed and urge error in the trial court’s order in this regard. We concur, and reverse upon the authority of City of Miami v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 165 So.2d 748; and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the judgment for $1,500.00 in plaintiff’s favor.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.