JOYCE C. BULLARD AND SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALICE CANALE, 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 this personal injury case arising from a bicycle-car collision, the trial court granted plaintiff Canale's motion for a new trial after a jury verdict favored the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the new trial order based on the verdict being contrary to the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence, declining to address the trial court's alternative grounds regarding negligence and contributory negligence as matters of law.
The appellate court affirmed the new trial order based solely on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The court did not approve the trial court's alternative grounds (directed verdict and contributory negligence instructions) because evidence existed from which a jury could reasonably infer that defendant was not negligent and/or that plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
[1] An order granting a new trial will be affirmed if any single ground supporting the order is sufficient to sustain it.
[2] A trial court's order granting a new trial based on the verdict being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence is within the court's sound discretion and should no…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The order granting a new trial on this basis is within the exercise of a sound, broad discretion of the trial court, Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, and should not be disturbed on appeal unless upon an examination of the record there is shown a detectable abuse of judicial discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for new trial orders based on verdict being contrary to manifest weight of evidence; requires showing of detectable abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Canale was riding her bicycle easterly on the right side of Polk Street in Hollywood, Florida. Defendant Bullard was driving her automobile …
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
In this personal injury action the jury returned a verdict favorable to the defendants. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and defendants have appealed that order.
Plaintiff Canale was riding her bicycle in an easterly direction on the right side of Polk Street in the City of Hollywood, Flori*238da. Defendant Bullard, driving her automobile on Polk Street in the same direction, overtook and passed to the left of the plaintiff while a short distance to the west of the intersection of 16th Avenue, then at 16th Avenue made a right turn directly across Mrs. Canale’s path. We recite these facts to set the situation. Omitted are the conflicting details as to the respective speeds of the vehicle and the bicycle, the point at which the car overtook the bicycle, their respective locations in reference to the curb and driving lanes, and the manner in which the bicycle collided with the right rear portion of the vehicle.
The order granting the new trial was on the grounds (1) that the court had erred in failing to grant the plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict because the uncontradicted evidence showed conclusively that defendant Bullard was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, (2) that the court had erred in instructing the jury on plaintiff’s contributory negligence as the evidence conclusively showed that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and (3) the jury verdict in favor of the defendants was contrary to the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence.
The order appealed is affirmed on the basis of the third ground stated by the trial court in the order, i. e., on the court’s determination that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence. The order granting a new trial on this basis is within the exercise of a sound, broad discretion of the trial court, Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, and should not be disturbed on appeal unless upon an examination of the record there is shown a detectable abuse of judicial discretion. Russo v. Clark, Fla. 1962, 147 So.2d 1. We have examined the record and we conclude that appellants have not met the heavy burden upon them to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting to plaintiff a new trial on this ground. See Hendricks v. Dailey, Fla.1968, 208 So.2d 101.
An order granting a new trial on more than one ground should be affirmed if any single ground in support of the order is upheld and is alone sufficient to sustain the order. Such is the case here in regard to the third ground which we have discussed above. In affirming the order however, we do not approve grounds (1) and (2) as there is in the record some evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer (1) that there was no negligence on the part of defendant Bullard proximately causing a collision, and/or (2) that plaintiff Canale was guilty of some negligence that proximately contributed in an appreciable degree to the collision. See Hendricks v. Dailey, supra; Glisson v. North Florida Telephone Co., Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 25.
Affirmed.
CROSS, J., and SALFI, DOMINICK, J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Beach Texaco, Inc. v. Price, 433 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…. Co., 398 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. dism., 402 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1981); City of Miami v. Veargis, 311 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Cook v. Eney, 277 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 414 (Fla.1973); Bullard v. Canale, 260 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). The remaining points raised by the appellants have been considered, and found to be without merit. AFFIRMED.…
-
Lyman v. Charles L. Fanta & the Travelers Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…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 scene of the accident and reference to certain tire…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. & Eddie Davis v. Griffin, 566 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…y of an order granting appellants’ motion for new trial. Cf. [*1324] Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 86 So. 2d 792 (Fla.1956); Bullard v. Canale, 260 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Department of Corrections v. Romero, 524 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (1988). Because a new trial will be conducted, it is necessary that we address two of the other issues raised on appeal. Generall…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Russo v. Nolan Clark, 147 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1962)
- 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)