TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, EDDIE BROWN AND KENNETH BROWN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALZENIA HICKS AND ROBERT HICKS, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Travelers Indemnity Company, insurer of a defendant in an automobile negligence case, appeals from an order granting a new trial on damages. The trial court set aside a jury verdict favoring the plaintiffs, finding it inadequate and contrary to the manifest weight of evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding the trial judge abused his discretion.
The trial judge abused his discretion in granting the new trial. The order lacked sufficient articulation of reasons for the new trial to permit proper appellate review, and reviewing the record, the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given the conflicts and contradictions in testimony about the plaintiff's injuries and medical treatment.
[1] An order granting a new trial must articulate specific reasons supported by record evidence to be amenable to appellate review.
[2] A jury verdict that is merely stated to be against the manifest weight of the evidence or influenced by outside considerations, without record support, is insufficient to…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“orders granting motions for new trial should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may exercise proper appellate review. Mere conclusions to the effect that (1) the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or that (2) the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record, without pointing to record support, are not amenable to judicial review.”
Establishes the legal standard that trial courts must provide specific reasons grounded in the record, not just conclusory statements, when granting new trials.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an automobile negligence case, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (Alzenia and Robert Hicks) for an amount less than the sum of t…
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 Shock The Judicial Conscience cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court and insurer of the tortfeasor, appeals from an order granting a new trial on the issue of damages in an automobile negligence case wherein the jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellees, plaintiffs in the trial court, for an amount less than the sum of the medical bills and lost wages.
In pertinent part, the order granting new trial provides as follows:
“THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial and the Court,' having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
“ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
“1. That the Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial be and the same is hereby granted; the verdict as returned by the jury is hereby set aside; and a new trial is ordered on the issue of damages only based upon the following grounds:
“a. The verdict as returned by the jury is so inadequate that it shocks the judicial conscience of this Court, the jury verdict is grossly inadequate, the verdict is contrary and against the manifest weight of the evidence and the jury verdict demonstrates that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record and a jury of reasonable men and women could not have returned such verdict.”
The sole point on appeal for our consideration is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in entering an order granting a new trial. In light of the recent Florida Supreme Court case of Wackenhut Corporation v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); and our decision in White v. Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), it is our opinion that the trial judge did, in fact, abuse his discretion.
In Wackenhut, supra, the Supreme Court opined that orders granting motions for new trial should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may exercise proper appellate review. Mere conclusions to the effect that (1) the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or that (2) the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record, without pointing to record support, are not amenable to judicial review. White, supra.
Even setting aside the deficiency in the order, our review of the record convinces us that the verdict returned was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record is replete with both conflicts and contradictions in the testimony concerning both the degree and extensiveness of appellee’s injuries, and the necessity and effectiveness of her medical treatment. With the disparities being what they are, we cannot say that a jury of reasonable men and women could not have returned, the verdict they did sub judice. See Crutcher Resources Corporation v. Rayner, 283 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
Accordingly, the order granting new trial . is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the jury ver-diet and enter judgment in accordance therewith.
Reversed and remanded with directions,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…equirement of a new trial may not be sustained on this ground. Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391, 393 (Fla.1981); Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1964); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); White v. Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see generally, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1983). [*1050] Because the defendant had not introduced expert evidence on the issue at the trial, the trial c…
-
Ligman v. Jeffrey Tardiff, M.D., 466 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…) the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or that (2) the jury was influenced by considerations [*1127] outside the record, without pointing to record support, are not amenable to judicial review. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The order under review articulated that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was a result of a misconception of the legal effect of the evidence by the jury. The order recited the court’s finding that…
-
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 871 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…either oral or written, and thus is also defective. See Gould v. Nat’l Bank of Fla., 421 So. 2d 798, 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)(holding that trial court must give express reasons that support its findings for a new trial); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hicks, 363 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“[O]rders granting motions for new trial should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may exercise proper appellate review.”). See also Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, supra. Moreover, a review of the record e…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Royal Odell White, Jr. v. Oswaldo Tomas Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Sperling v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 283 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)