HARVEY WILLARD, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK H. BOWEN AND MICHIGAN MUTUAL LIABILITY COMPANY, AN INSURANCE CORPORATION, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's order granting a new trial because the order failed to state that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as required by controlling precedent.
A trial court's order granting a new trial must explicitly state that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; an order granting a new trial on grounds of preponderance of evidence and manifest justice alone is insufficient and reversible.
[1] A trial court's order granting a new trial must explicitly state that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; grounds based solely on prepondera…
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 intelligenceA jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in a personal injury action, but the trial court granted a new trial based on preponderance of evidence an…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order granting a new trial following the rendition of a jury verdict for the plaintiff in a personal injury action.
The sole question presented for our consideration is whether the trial court’s order granting a new trial must state that the jury verdict was against the “manifest weight of the evidence”. As held in Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959), and like cases, the order for new trial provided in material part that “the preponderance of the evidence and the manifest justice of the case requires the granting of a new trial”. That was the express and sole ground for granting a new trial.
In Nunberg v. Brodsky, 224 So. 2d 727 (Fla.App.1969), the court held that where the trial court found that the verdict was not “consistent” with the evidence, such ground was insufficient to justify the granting of a new trial and an order to that effect was reversed. We hold that the ground set forth in the order reviewed herein was similarly deficient in that it fails to conform to the grounds for new trial as recognized by the case decisions referred to above and those cited in Nunberg, supra, at page 729.
For the reasons stated, the order granting new trial is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the verdict and enter judgment thereon.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976)…is quashed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS and BOYD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. . Bowen v. Willard, 321 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). . Willard v. Bowen, 294 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). . Ibid. . Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. . See also Messina v. Baldi, 135 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1961). . Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 297 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974). . See Matter of Vermeulen, 122 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA…
-
Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 309 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1975)…4; Laskey v. Smith, Fla.1970, 239 So. 2d 13; Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, Fla.1970, 234 So. 2d 645; Stopko v. Farrington, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 28; Frazier v. Merricks, Fla.App.1972, 271 So. 2d 36, and Willard v. Bowen, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 696. It is my opinion the District Court decision conflicts with the rationale of the cited cases as hereinafter explained. It appears from the District Court’s reported opinion that: “The plaintiff declined to accede to the remittitur, and appealed.…
-
Bowen v. Willard, 321 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…d verdict. We are of the opinion it did and reverse. In a prior appeal by appellee, this court reversed an order of the trial court granting appellants a new trial because the ground granting the new trial was insufficient. Willard v. Bowen et al., 294 So. 2d 696 (Fla.App.1974). Willard sued Bowen, alleging Bowen negligently maintained his building, and negligently failed to warn him of its dan [*596] gerous condition, as a result of which he was injured. Bowen denied the negligence, and alleged that Willar…1 / 3
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)
- Drowne v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & DCS/Comptroller, 224 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)