JOSE A. SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE E. GODFREY ET AL., 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.
The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial in a negligence action arising from a vehicle collision, finding no reversible error regarding the verdict's weight or excessiveness despite the defendant's arguments about jury instructions and damages.
A trial court's grant of a new trial in a negligence case is affirmed when the evidence regarding liability and damages is close and no reversible error appears under the manifest weight of the evidence standard.
[1] A trial court's decision to grant a new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence is reviewed for reversible error and will be affirmed when the evidence on liab…
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 negligence action arose from an intersection collision between vehicles. Defendant Smith settled for $9,700 and was found clearly at fault, while th…
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 Negligence Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Trial court granted a new trial in a negligence action resulting from an intersection collision between vehicles. Three grounds therefor were assigned:
“(1) The verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
“(2) The court erred in failing to instruct the jury that any award against the defendant Brown should be diminished in the amount proportionate to the negligence of defendant Smith;
“(3) Defendant Smith, having settled for $9,700 and having been clearly at fault, even if the jury was properly instructed the verdict of $35,000 against defendant Brown was grossly excessive.”
We feel that the trial court erred as concerns grounds two and three. Stuart v. Hertz Corporation, 302 So. 2d 187 (4th D. C.A.Fla.1974); Issen v. Lincenberg, 293 So. 2d 777 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974).
We have surveyed the evidence with reference to the trial court decision and with particular reference to ground (1). The issues are close as to liability and excessiveness of damages and it is our opinion that no reversible error has been made to appear by reason of the principles found in Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959). Dubois Fence & Garden Co. v. Stevens, 296 So. 2d 116 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974)
Affirmed.
WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Frank M. Stuart, M.D., P.A. v. The HERTZ Corp., 302 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Issen v. Lincenberg, 293 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Dubois Fence & Garden Co. v. Stevens, 296 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)