GEORGE R. PARKS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
RALSTON CONSTRUCTION CO., 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.
Parks appeals from a trial court order granting a new trial and ordering a remittitur that would reduce a $45,000 jury verdict to $15,000. The appellate court reverses the remittitur and the new trial on liability, holding that while damages may warrant reconsideration, liability was fully supported and a new trial should be limited to damages only.
The court reversed the remittitur and the portion of the new trial order concerning liability. The court held that while a new trial on damages may be appropriate, the question of liability was fully supported by the record and the new trial should be limited to the damages issue only.
[1] A trial court may grant a new trial on the issue of damages only when liability has been established and the verdict on damages is excessive.
[2] A remittitur is permissible when a jury verdict is excessive, but it must be based on the evidence and not exceed the amount requested by the plaintiff.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find merit in both of these contentions.”
Establishes that the appellate court agreed with appellant's arguments against the remittitur and new trial on liability.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury rendered a verdict of $45,000 in plaintiff Parks' property damage case against Ralston Construction Co. The trial court found the verdict exces…
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 Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff below appeals from the entry of an order of the Circuit Court of Monroe County, which states:
“THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard upon defendant’s, RALSTON CONSTRUCTION CO., Motion to Set Aside Jury Verdict; Enter Judgment Non Ob-stante Veredicto For Defendant Or In The Alternative, Motion For New Trial, and the Court having heard the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, it is
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion For New Trial is hereby granted on the ground that the plaintiff’s property was not damaged to the extent of the verdict, and not only was such verdict excessive, but it exceeded the amount requested by the plaintiff, and the verdict rendered herein and entered in the records of this Court is hereby vacated and set aside, and a new trial is hereby granted to the defendant unless plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, enter and file a remittitur in the sum of Thirty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($30,000.00), reducing the judgment that may be entered in this cause to the sum of Fifteen Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($15,000.00). It is further. “ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that if the plaintiff shall, within the said thirty-day period, enter and file said remittitur, then in such event the defendant’s said Motion for New Trial shall, at the expiration of the thirty-day period, stand denied, and in that event final judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant shall-be entered in the sum of Fifteen Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($15,000.00).
“DONE AND ORDERED at Key West, Monroe County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1976.”
It is appellant’s main contention on appeal 1 that the trial court erred in ordering a remittitur in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) thereby reducing the jury verdict from Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($45,000.00) to Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) and that the court erred in granting a new trial to the defendant on the question of liability. We find merit in both of these contentions.
We therefore reverse that part of the order that directs the plaintiff to enter a remittitur in the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) and that part of the order that grants defendant a new trial on the question of liability. We hold that the order granting a new trial should have been limited to the question of damages. The cause is therefore remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. It appears that the question of liability is fully supported by the record and no error has been made to appear with respect to the liability of the defendant.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
. See Clement v. Aztec Sales Inc., Fla.1975, 297 So. 2d 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gould v. Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…that the damages awarded are excessive it is not proper to retry the issue of liability: remittitur or new trial on damages is the remedy. Ellis v. Golconda Corporation, 352 [*803] So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Parks v. Ralston Construction Co., 338 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Aronson, 318 So. 2d at 454; Dura Corporation v. Wallace, 297 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The fourth and final grounds5 given in support of granting a new trial on liability are mere conclusory statements. A trial court must g…
-
Ursula H. Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…rt of Appeal has directly and concisely addressed the issue. In the cases of St. Pierre v. Public Gas Co., 423 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), Gould v. National Bank of Florida, 421 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and Parks v. Ralston Construction Co., 338 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), it has clearly been held that when a remittitur is ordered, the alternative to the remittitur should be a new trial on the issue of damages alone. The clearest statement comes in the Gould case where Judge Ferguson points out tha…
-
Massey v. Netschke, 504 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…te from the damage issue in this trial. The liability verdict was clearly supported by the record. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corp. v. Silva, 476 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Shelly v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.; Parks v. Ralston Construction Co., 338 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The order denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
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
- Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 297 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)