ALICE PITTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CORNELIUS SMITH, 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 judge's order granting a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.
A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, but the trial judge granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, finding the verdict contrary to the m…
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
Defendant appeals from an order of the trial judge granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant based upon the judge’s finding that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
Contentions similar to those raised by the defendant in this appeal were considered in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669. There the Supreme Court of Florida held that it was the duty of the trial judge to grant a new trial if he concludes that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence; and he should always do so if the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or it has been influenced by considerations outside the record. The trial judge by virtue of his close contact with the trial stands in a unique position in that he has the opportunity to better understand the ultimate decision of the jurors and is in a much better position than an appellate court to pass upon the ultimate correctness of the jury’s verdict.
Therefore, the trial court has a very broad and liberal discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial and such determination will not be disturbed except on a clear showing of abuse. The burden rests upon the appellant to make such error clearly appear. In the case sub judice the defendant has failed to sustain this burden.
Affirmed.
REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Hanratty, 281 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…upon an issue improperly submitted for the jury’s deliberation. Therefore, the order granting a new trial was correct. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Cunningham v. Romano, Fla.App.1973, 278 So. 2d 631; Pittman v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 279. The judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed. The order granting a new trial is affirmed. The appellees have filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 627.428(1), F.S.A. The right to such a fee is not now established since…
-
B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Byran Anderman, 279 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…n rehearing, in a four-to-three decision, reversed its own position and reinstated the decision of the district court of appeal (and the jury verdict). In my opinion, and for the reasons more specifically set forth in Pittman v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 279, I am inclined to leave the trial court’s determination undisturbed. Cf. Hubbard v. Brown, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 267. I therefore respectfully dissent.…
-
Lyman v. Charles L. Fanta & the Travelers Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…oast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 21; Wheeler v. Nelson, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 11], we fail to find that the appellant has made error appear in the rendition of the order. Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Pittman v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 279; Bullard v. Canale, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 237. Because this matter must be retried, we make the following observations: Although the trial judge was correct in granting a new trial because of comments made about certain pictures depicting the sc…
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)