BERNICE FARRIOR ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PRUDENCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, 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, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The trial judge had granted a new trial because the jury's verdict was contrary to the law and evidence.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the order granting a new trial because the appellants failed to demonstrate clear error in the trial court's ruling.
“a trial judge should always grant a new trial if he finds that the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record.”
Establishes the standard for granting a new trial based on jury deception or external influence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs appealed an order from the trial court that granted the defendant's motion for a new trial. The trial court's decision was based on its…
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs have appealed an order granting defendant’s motion for new trial grounded upon the finding by the trial court that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case.
*387In Cloud v. Fallis1 the Supreme Court held that a trial judge should always grant a new trial if he finds that the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record. It further held that inasmuch as motions for new trial are granted in the exercise of a sound, broad discretion, the ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that it has been abused. The burden to make error clearly appear is on the appellant.
Appellants having failed to clearly demonstrate error in the ruling complained of, the order appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPEC-TOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 222 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…here the court held that the trial judge has broad discretion in granting a new trial if he finds that the jury was influenced by consideration outside the record as he appears to have in the case at bar. Farrior v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, 220 So. 2d 386 (Fla.App.1969). Accordingly, we reverse the order granting a new trial insofar as the same holds that there was no evidence placed before the jury to justify an instruction on the claimed violation of the Safety Appliance Act and affirm the order g…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)