CARNEGIE HOTEL CORPORATION, D/B/A BLUE WATERS HOTEL, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM H. JACOBI, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1967-08-15
No. 66-777
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
202 So. 2d 200 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1967)

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion. The case involved a personal injury claim where the jury initially found for the defendant, but the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.


Holding

No, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. The appellate court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.


Key Quotes

“The appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion under the rule announced in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So. 2d 669, and applied in Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.1961, 131 So. 2d 740.”

This quote establishes the legal standard used by the appellate court to review the trial judge's decision.

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff sued the defendant hotel for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the hotel's employee. The jury returned a verdict i…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals an order granting a new trial. The action was for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s employee acting in the scope of his employment. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The grounds set forth in the order granting the new trial are: (1) the verdict is *201contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the verdict shows that the jury misunderstood the legal effect of the evidence; (3) the verdict upon the evidence presented shocked the judicial conscience of the court. The appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion under the rule announced in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669, and applied in Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 740.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw