ROYAL CASTLE SYSTEMS, INC., A CORPORATION, ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP., A CORPORATION, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION AND ROBERT GARY TYLER, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLAN N. FIELDS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY JACK FIELDS, DECEASED, AND CHRIS LANG, 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 appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial, and that the defendants' motion for a directed verdict was without merit.
[1] A trial court's order granting a new trial is reviewable for abuse of discretion.
[2] An appellate court may consider grounds for a directed verdict not explicitly stated by the trial court as a basis for granting a new trial, if properly raised on appeal.
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 intelligenceDefendants appealed an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in their favor in a wrongful death action. The trial court cited the verdict be…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants below from an order granting a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the appellant-defendants in this wrongful death action.
In the order granting a new trial as amended, the grounds therefor were stated as follows:
“The verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and/or the Court erred in allowing into evidence, over plaintiff’s objections, evidence that the defendant, GARY TYLER, had taken and passed a lie-detector test, and that the admissibility of said evidence was material and prejudicial, it is therefore: ”
Appellants present two contentions: First, that the trial court committed reversible error by denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s case on the ground that a prima facie case had not been made. Second, that the granting of the new trial was an abuse of discretion.
The first contention seeks review on a ground in addition to those stated by the trial court as the basis for the order granting new trial. While formerly such additional ground would not be subject for review [see: Osteen v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 283 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Dorr-Oliver, Incorporated v. Parnell, 334 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)] it is now held to be reviewable under Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla.1976). Accordingly, we have considered said contention of the appellant in the light of the record, briefs, and argument and find it is without merit.
We hold that appellants’ contention that the granting of a new trial in this case was an abuse of discretion is without merit. Since the case is to be retried following remand we will omit a statement of the facts, as revealed in the pleadings and evidence. On consideration of the record, briefs and argument, upon applying the principles applicable hereto as pronounced in Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669, 673 (Fla.1959), we hold there has been no showing of a clear abuse of discretion and for that reason the order granting new trial will not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…10 (Fla. 1976); Florida Appellate Rule 9.130(a)(4). The appellate courts of this state have the authority to deal with appellate issues other than those stated as the basis for orders granting new trials. Royal Castle [*560] Systems, Inc. v. Fields, 354 So. 2d 947 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). . Cohn v. Surfside Plaza Hotel, 377 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Packer v. Winston Towers One Hundred Association, Inc., 377 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). . The police, however, were not told about the planned robbery.…
-
Martin v. Carlton, 470 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ents to the extent possi-ble_” Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla.1976). This rule implements that decision. . Compare Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and Royal Castle Systems, Inc. v. Fields, 354 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
-
State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981) (on direct appeal from order [*439] granting a new trial, appellant could raise error in denial of motion for directed verdict); Royal Castle Systems, Inc. v. Fields, 354 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (same). Since, as we have previously noted, the policy of the appellate rules is that criminal and civil appeals are to be treated alike, except for matters unique to criminal cases,7 it is clear that the rules have expanded…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976)
- Osteen v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 283 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Dorr-Oliver v. Parnell, 334 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)