CONSOLIDATED AIR CHARTER EXCHANGE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HOLLY-COTTON AVIATION SERVICES, INC., 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 a trial court's decision to deny a motion for a new trial, holding that an appellate court will not reverse an order denying a new trial based on an inadequate verdict if reasonable people could have reached the same verdict.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial. An appellate court will not reverse an order denying a new trial based on an inadequate verdict if reasonable men could have found the verdict that they did.
“Nevertheless, we feel that the judgment must be affirmed upon the principle that an appellate court will not reverse an order denying a new trial upon inadequacy of the verdict where reasonable men could have found the verdict that they did find.”
This quote establishes the legal principle used to affirm the lower court's decision.
The appellant received a jury verdict of $3500 for damages to an airplane caused by the appellee's negligent repair. The appellant argued that the ver…
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 Inadequate Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff-appellant received a jury verdict of $3500. Final judgment was entered thereon. The appellant’s motion for a new trial was based primarily on the ground that the verdict was inadequate. The appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial.
The appellant sought damages equivalent to the difference in the value of an airplane before and after a wreck caused by the appellee’s negligent repair of the airplane. The appellant points out that there is no way for the jury to have reached the exact amount of the verdict by using any combination of the amounts of the estimates of value of the airplane submitted by the expert witnesses at the trial. We find from our examination of the record that this is true. Nevertheless, we feel that the judgment must be affirmed upon the principle that an appellate court will not reverse an order denying a new trial upon inadequacy of the verdict where reasonable men could have found the verdict that they did find. City of Miami v. Smith, Fla. 1964, 165 So.2d 748; Hayes v. Hatched, Fla. 1964, 166 So.2d 146; White v. Bacon, Fla.App, 1964, 166 So.2d 678.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cipolato v. Cooper, 230 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…igation system operate properly. We find no error in the award of $5,000 on the counterclaim. Bayshore Development Co. v. Bonfoey, 75 Fla. 455, 78 So. 507 (1918); and Consolidated Air Charter Exch. v. Holly-Cotton Aviation Serv., Inc., Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 471. The record on appeal does not contain plaintiff’s motion to tax costs or the order taxing costs. We cannot, therefore, reverse the order of costs, interest and ex [*689] pert witness fees as determined by the trial court. Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1964)
- Hayes v. Hatchell, 166 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1964)
- Lizzie Mae White v. McKinley William Bacon, 166 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)