GERTRUDE THOMPSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DOROTHY E. WILLIAMS, 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.
Dorothy Williams sued defendants for damages from an automobile accident. After a jury verdict for defendants, the trial court granted Williams a new trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's finding that the evidence was uncontroverted regarding the defendant's sole negligence satisfied the requirement for granting a new trial.
The court held that when a trial judge finds the evidence is uncontroverted that a defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of an accident, this finding is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence in order to grant a new trial.
[1] A trial court's finding that evidence is "uncontroverted" that a defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of an accident is sufficient to satisfy the requireme…
[2] An order granting a new trial is affirmed if no reversible error is found regarding the grounds stated for the new trial.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a trial judge finds the evidence is "uncontroverted" that the negligence of defendant McKeon (driver) was the sole proximate cause of the accident this is sufficient, in our opinion, to satisfy any requirement, that he must find the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence in order to grant a new trial.”
The court's holding establishing that an uncontroverted finding regarding negligence satisfies the manifest weight of the evidence standard for granting a new trial.
Dorothy Williams sued defendants for damages resulting from an automobile accident. The defendants denied negligence and alleged plaintiff was guilty …
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
The plaintiff, Dorothy Williams sued the defendants for damages resulting from an automobile accident. Defendants denied negligence and alleged plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The trial court granted a new trial to Williams and defendants have appealed.
Defendants argue the trial court erred in setting forth the grounds for granting the plaintiff a new trial. They rely on Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Fla.1970, 234 So.2d 645; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; and Nunberg v. Brodsky, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 727. Defendants contend that the order must state that the jury verdict was against the “manifest weight of the evidence”.
The order for new trial provided, in part, "that the court is convinced that the evidence is uncontroverted that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the defendant McKeon and that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff which proximately contributed to the cause of the accident”.
If a trial judge finds the evidence is “uncontroverted” that the negligence of defendant McKeon (driver) was the sole proximate cause of the accident this is sufficient, in our opinion, to satisfy any requirement, that he must find the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence in order to grant a new trial.
We find no reversible error as to the order granting a new trial.
We have considered Point Two which was raised and argued by the defendants for reversal and have determined that it is without sufficient merit to warrant reversal.
The order granting the new trial is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)…nst the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerations outside the record, the order must give reasons which will support one of these two conclusions so that it will be susceptible of appellate review. See Thompson v. Williams, 253 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Orders granting motions for new trials should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may be able to fulfill their duty of review by determining whether judicial discretion has been abused. Since the order for n…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson, 472 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1985)…nst the manifest weight of the evidence or was influenced by considerations outside the record, the order must give reasons which will support one of these two conclusions so that it will be susceptible of appellate review. See Thompson v. Williams, 253 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Orders granting motions for new trials should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may be able to fulfill their duty of review by determining whether judicial discretion has been abused. 359 So. 2d at 435.…
-
Royal Odell White, Jr. v. Oswaldo Tomas Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…the manifest weight of the evidence or [2] was influenced by considerations outside the record, the order must give reasons which will support one of these two conclusions so that it will be susceptible of appellate review. See Thompson v. Williams, 253 So. 2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). Orders granting motions for new trials should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may be able to fulfill their duty of review by determining whether judicial discretion has been abused.” [Emphasis added.] App…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 234 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1970)
- Drowne v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & DCS/Comptroller, 224 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)