ROBERT CHARLES LEGGETT, APPELLANT,
v.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Plaintiff Leggett appealed after losing a motion for a new trial in his negligence suit against Seaboard Coast Line Railroad for injuries sustained when a railroad switch engine struck his vehicle at a crossing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial, finding the jury verdict contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial. The appellate court found a substantial basis in the record supporting the trial court's conclusion that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and such discretionary orders will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse.
“The burden to make error clearly appear is on the appellant. Although when such an attempt is made the record must be examined by the appellate court, the assailant cannot content himself simply to submit the record and expect the order to be upset if the reviewing body finds, in cold type without benefit of any of the circumstances known to the trial judge, and never to be known to the appellate court, that there appears to be some 'substantial competent evidence' supporting the verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review for new trial orders and the appellant's burden in challenging them on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeggett was operating a motor vehicle when it was struck by defendant's switch engine at a railroad crossing in Jacksonville. Leggett sued for persona…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff has appealed an order granting defendant a new trial on the ground that the verdict rendered in plaintiff’s favor is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries sustained when a motor vehicle which he was operating was negligently struck by defendant’s switch engine at a railroad crossing in the City of Jacksonville. To the complaint defendant interposed the defenses of general denial and contributory negligence. It was upon the issues thus drawn by these pleadings that the jury rendered its verdict in plaintiff’s favor.
We have carefully reviewed the record before us and find therein a sub*17stantial basis for the trial court’s conclusion that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The order granting a new trial was rendered in the exercise of a sound, broad discretion and will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. As held by our Supreme Court in Cloud v. Fallis: 1
“The burden to make error clearly appear is on the appellant. Although when such an attempt is made the record must be examined by the appellate court, the assailant cannot content himself simply to submit the record and expect the order to be upset if the reviewing body finds, in cold type without benefit of any of the circumstances known to the trial judge, and never to be known to the appellate court, that there appears to be some ‘substantial competent evidence’ supporting the verdict.”
The holding in Cloud v. Fallis has been respected and followed by this court in decisions subsequently rendered by it.2
In support of his position for reversal of the order appealed, appellant places reliance on the decisions rendered by this court reversing orders granting new trials in the cases of Cobb v. Brew 3 and Dailey v. Hendricks.4 We are unable to agree with appellant that the record in the case sub judice justifies placing it in the same evidentiary posture as that found to exist in Cobb and Dailey, supra. In those cases an examination of the record failed to disclose any basis which could be said to support the trial court’s order granting a new trial, and the manifest weight of the evidence, if any, in those cases preponderated more strongly in favor of the verdict than against it.
For the foregoing reasons the order appealed is affirmed,
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castellanos v. Hialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank, 330 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ing reversible error clearly, definitely, and fully to appear. Failure to meet the burden impels the conclusion that there is no error in the record and the judgment appealed must be affirmed. See Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 16; [*101] Garner v. Gulf Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 192, and 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals § 316 and the cases cited therein. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the contro…
-
Egidi Indus. Park Corp. v. Wide Open Spaces, Inc., 335 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…rs of the trial court come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness and the burden of showing error is on the one who asserts it. See, e. g., Fernandez v. Arocha, 308 So. 2d 45 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 221 So. 2d 16 (Fla.App.1st DCA 1969); and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals §§ 314 and 316. In the instant case, we have carefully considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law and have concluded that…
-
Lyman v. Charles L. Fanta & the Travelers Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…rities as to the discretion of a trial judge in entering such an order [Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Spearman Distributing Company v. Boyette, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 690; Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 16], as to the burden of the appellant to upset such an order granting a new trial contrasted with an order denying a new trial [Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Cross v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 21; Wheeler v. Nelson, Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Cobb v. Brew, 155 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Spearman Distrib. Co. v. Boyette, 205 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Dailey v. Hendricks, 213 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Elehue Smith v. State, 210 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Glisson v. N. Fla. Tel. Co., 210 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)