LILLIAN MAE HUBBARD AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
OSCAR BROWN AND ALBERTA M. BROWN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
Trial court's grant of new trial in negligence action based on finding that racial prejudice influenced jury verdict was not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed.
A trial judge's order granting a new trial based on a finding that racial prejudice influenced the jury's verdict is not an abuse of discretion when the judge concludes the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[1] A trial judge's broad discretion to grant a new trial based on findings that jury verdicts are against the manifest weight of evidence or tainted by improper consideratio…
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 intelligenceIn a negligence action, the jury returned a verdict that the trial judge found shocking to the judicial conscience, believing that racial prejudice am…
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 New Trial Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant contends error in the trial court’s order granting a new trial in a negligence action.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial in a negligence action. The order recited:
“the judicial conscience of this Court was shocked by the verdict of the jury and it is this Court’s reaction that racial prejudice, among other things, entered into the considerations of a member or members of the jury”.
The discretion of the trial judge in granting a new trial is very broad, but is subject to appellate review, and its validity must be weighed in the light of the disclosures of the record. Russo v. Clark, Fla., 147 So.2d 1.
The trial judge is better positioned than any other person to comprehend the processes by which the decision of the jurors is reached. When he has exercised his talents, knowledge and experience and concludes that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, it is his duty to grant a new trial, and he should always do so if the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record. Such ruling should not be disturbed absent a clear showing that it has been abused. Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., Fla., 234 So.2d 645.
It is obvious that the Court below found the verdict to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and that justice required his action.
Having read the record on appeal, we are unable to conclude that there has been any abuse of the discretion of the trial Court, and affirm his order.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Russo v. Nolan Clark, 147 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1962)
- Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 234 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1970)