CHERYL FLORENCE CHRISTIANA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES D. WHITE AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
In this negligence case, a jury found the defendant without fault after he turned left on a red light and collided with the plaintiff who was proceeding on a green light. The appellate court reversed, finding the verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a new trial motion.
The appellate court held that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The record clearly showed some negligence on the part of the defendant-appellee.
[1] A jury verdict must be set aside and a new trial granted when the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial when the jury's verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The record in the instant cause clearly shows some negligence on the part of appel-lee.”
The court's finding that despite the jury verdict, the evidence demonstrated defendant's negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was traveling southbound on a divided highway when the traffic signal changed from red to green for through traffic. As she approached the i…
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
NEWELL, EMERY J., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of appellee (defendant below) following a jury verdict in appellee’s favor. Plaintiff was southbound in her automobile on a divided open highway which had a median strip separating opposing traffic. As she approached an intersection she observed the traffic signal for southbound through traffic change from red to green. The particular traffic signal at this intersection is described as a five phase fully actuated traffic control signal which responds to the demands of traffic. There was no evidence of any unlawful or unreasonable speeding by plaintiff. As she moved closer to the intersection she noticed defendant’s vehicle blocking her lane of traffic; she swerved to the right, missing defendant’s vehicle, but striking a concrete traffic control box off to the right hand side of the roadway.
The defendant had been proceeding northbound in his station wagon. He pulled into the left turn lane at the intersection and stopped behind other cars. Several cars ahead of him turned left on a green arrow. The defendant testified the green arrow went off before he got into the intersection. He saw the green arrow turn yellow and then red as he proceeded into the intersection. He stopped in a position described by him as a little bit to the south of the middle of the intersection and waited for a clear space to make his left turn. He then turned left on the red light. As he was entering the centermost of the through lanes for southbound traffic, defendant heard a horn or screeching of brakes, slammed on his own brakes and stopped. Defendant further testified it was a beautiful day, clear and bright, the pavement was dry and that nothing obstructed his view to the north.
The facts in the instant case are strikingly parallel to those reported in Kinsey v. Kelly, Fla.App., 312 So. 2d 461. That case involved a collision between a motorcyclist and a left turning automobile moving on a green light; other than these dissimilarities the facts in the two cases are virtually identical.
As in Kinsey, supra, this case was tried on comparative negligence. By its verdict for the defendant-appellee herein, the jury necessarily concluded that defendant was without negligence which was a legal cause of the accident and that plaintiff was 100% at fault.
The record in the instant cause clearly shows some negligence on the part of appel-lee. We find that this jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Izquierdo v. Gyroscope, Inc., 946 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…negate a defendant’s potential liability for negligently permitting the dangerous condition to exist; it simply raises the issue of comparative negligence and precludes summary judgment.”). We are also guided by our decision in Christiana v. White, 346 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), which involved an intersec-tional automobile collision where the defendant made a left turn after the left turn arrow had turned red. The plaintiff traveling in the opposite direction swerved to miss the defendant but managed to…
-
Rivera v. White, 386 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…some negligence which was a legal cause of [plaintiffs’ damages,” which conclusion necessarily means, in our view, that the jury was misled as to the force and credibility of the evidence, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d at 673; see Christiana v. White, 346 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and (b) this result is not changed by the fact that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial, competent evidence as an order granting a motion for new trial is not measured on appeal by whether the jury verdict is support…
-
Clarke v. Stewart, 579 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…and should, correct what would amount to a manifest injustice. Since the record shows at least some degree of negligence on the part of appellant, the trial court was eminently correct in its application of the facts to the law. Christiana v. White, 346 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1978); Diaz v. Certified Marine Industries, Inc., 346 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1977); Kinsey v. Kelly, 312 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 S…
Authorities Cited
- Kinsey v. Alton C. Kelly, 312 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)