IZAR LAWSON AND RETO LAWSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH SWIRN, 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.
In a rear-end collision damages action, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order for a new trial but reversed the restriction limiting retrial to damages only, holding that both liability and damages must be resubmitted to the jury because the evidence on both issues is inextricably interlaced.
Both liability and damages must be submitted to a new jury when the evidence on those issues is inextricably interlaced, despite a plaintiff's motion to limit retrial to damages alone.
[1] When evidence on liability and damages in a tort action is inextricably interlaced, a new trial must encompass both issues rather than being restricted to damages alone.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants were sued for damages resulting from a rear-end automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, but the trial court en…
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 Rear-End Collision cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants in an action for damages resulting from a rear-end automobile collision have appealed from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County, setting aside the jury verdict for the defendant, directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability, but granting a new trial on the issue of damages only.
This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed so far as it orders a new trial. See Pensacola Transit Co. v. Denton, 119 So.2d 296 (Fla.App.1960). In the said order, however, the trial court restricts the new trial to the issue of damages only, in accordance with the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but our examination of the trial record convinces us that justice to all parties concerned requires that both issues — liability and damages — be submitted to the jury at the new trial, primarily because the evidence as to both issues is so inextricably interlaced that the new jury should be allowed to consider and determine both issues. Therefore, the order appealed from is reversed as to its provision that the new trial be restricted to the issue of damages, and the order is otherwise affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ursula H. Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…. In the other cases cited in this court’s second Arab Termite case on the denial of the motion for rehearing, there were clearly distinguishing circumstances presented that are not pertinent to the issue we are now considering. In Lawson v. Swirn, 258 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), a remittitur was not involved. On the contrary, the trial court there set aside a jury verdict for the defendant, directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability and granted a new trial on the issue of damages alo…
-
Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…THOMPSON, Judge, dissenting in part, and concurring in part. I would award a new trial on both the issues of liability and damages. See 1661 Corporation v. Snyder, 267 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Lawson v. Swirn, 258 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 263 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1972). I agree to the reinstatement of the verdict on the issue of punitive damages.…
-
Shank v. Konstantinos Ioannis Fassoulas, 304 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…liability. It is our determination that Shank’s liability for negligence was not unequivocally established in the first trial so as to foreclose a new trial on that issue. Remsburg v. Mosley, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 432; Lawson v. Swirn, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 458; 1661 Corporation v. Snyder, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 362. For the foregoing reasons, the order appealed is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on all issues. Affirmed. . We note that in their motion for a new t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pensacola Transit Co., Inc. v. Denton, 119 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)