GARRISON
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
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 a motor vehicle collision negligence case, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a new trial after a jury verdict for plaintiff, finding the verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence due to plaintiff's contributory negligence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the new trial order.
The order granting a new trial must be affirmed because the trial judge properly concluded that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence that was the proximate cause of the accident.
“The defendant's motion for a new trial is granted because I think the conclusion is inescapable that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, which was proximate cause of the accident out of which the litigation arose.”
The trial judge's stated reasoning for granting the new trial, establishing that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA motor vehicle collision occurred resulting in litigation. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action involving issues of negli…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Associate Justice.
Trial below resulted in verdict for plaintiff in an action growing out of a motor vehicle collision, involving issues of negligence, and contributory negligence. .
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for new trial after having denied defendant’s motions for directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s case and at close of all the evidence.' One of the grounds assigned in defendant’s motion for new trial was that the verdict ds against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court stated his reasons for ordering a new trial as follows:
“The defendant’s motion for a new trial is granted because I think the conclusion is inescapable that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, which was proximate cause of the accident out of which the litigation arose. It is my opinion that I should have directed a verdict for the defendant and that my failure to do so was error which requires the granting of the motion.”
We have carefully considered the record and evidence. Irrespective of whether the lower court was in error in denying defendant’s motions for a directed verdict, we think the order granting new trial must be affirmed inasmuch as the order specifically states the trial judge’s conclusion that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Our view of the evidence does not requirfe us to disagree. See: Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866; Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311, 81 So. 476; Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, 161 So. 576; Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820; Richbourg v. Hilton, Fla., 56 So. 2d 539; Schneider v. Cohan, Fla., 59 So. 2d 644.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myers v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 86 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1956)…port, it becomes his duty to grant a new trial. Tampa Waterworks v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 So. 943; Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 68 Fla. 196, 67 So. 44; Richbourg v. Hilton, Fla., 56 So. 2d 539; Garrison v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla., 65 So. 2d 2; Schneider v. Cohan, Fla., 59 So. 2d 644; Farrell v. Solary, 43 Fla. 124, 31 So. 283; Clary v. Isom, 55 Fla. 384, 45 So. 994, and many others. These and many other cases commit this court to the doctrine that where the trial court grants a new tria…
-
Geller v. 2500 Collins Corp., 130 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ee Means v. Douglas, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 88. An appeal from an order granting a new trial limits the review by the appellate court to the grounds so specified by the trial judge in his order. See Garrison v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 2; Leonetti v. Boone, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 551; Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., Fla. 1955, 80 So. 2d 662. It is fundamental that a motion for directed verdict should never be granted unless it appears, as a matter of law, that a recovery cannot b…
Authorities Cited
- Nell Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1919)
- Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1917)
- Dudley v. Harrison, 127 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1937)
- Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)