JOSEPH R. WILLIAMS AND DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALEX BRYANT, 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.
The trial court properly granted a new trial based on the verdict being contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, but erred in directing a verdict on liability; the case is remanded for a full trial on all issues.
A trial court may grant a new trial when the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, but may not direct a verdict on liability without allowing the jury to determine that issue.
[1] A trial court has discretion to grant a new trial when the jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, provided the record supports such finding.
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 returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in a personal injury action. The trial judge granted a new trial, finding the verdict contrary to …
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 Discretionary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By these two appeals, we are called upon to pass upon the propriety of the trial court’s order granting a new trial in a personal injury action after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, and also a subsequent order directing a verdict as to liability on the part of the defendant^
The trial judge grounded his order for a new trial on the basis that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. This is a discretionary ruling [Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Volk v. Goetz, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 250; Sawyer v. Dawson, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 764], and the trial judge should be sustained if the record on appeal reveals evidence to support this finding. Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Danek v. Hoffman, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 893; Sawyer v. Daw son, supra; Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 16.
Viewing the record on appeal in light of these principles, we find no error on the part of the trial judge in granting a new trial. However, we believe the new trial should be on all the issues made by the pleadings, both as to liability and damages. Therefore, we reverse the order directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability, and return the matter to the trial court for a trial on all the issues.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded to the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelly v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 370 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The point urging error upon the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial because the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence does not present reversible error on this record. See Williams v. Bryant, 301 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Anderman, 279 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The remaining point going to the court’s refusal of the plaintiff’s motion to interview a juror does not present error. Cf. Shad v. Florida East Coast Railw…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Danek v. Hoffman, 189 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Sawyer v. Dawson, 215 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 221 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)