CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
COMREAL MIAMI, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Trial court's grant of new trial based on alleged jury instruction error was reversed because the error was not properly preserved and the instructions fairly presented the issue to the jury.
A trial court's grant of a new trial based on alleged jury instruction error must be reversed when the error was not preserved at trial and the instructions, considered as a whole, fairly and completely presented the issue to the jury.
[1] Objections to jury instructions must be preserved at trial to support a new trial motion, applying the same preservation requirements as appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a jury verdict against Comreal, the trial judge granted Comreal a new trial on the ground that he had erred in charging the jury.…
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 New Trial Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After a jury verdict against Comreal, the trial judge granted it a new trial on the ground that he had erred in charging the jury. We reverse both because the alleged error was not properly preserved at trial, see Schorr v. Thaw, 464 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(preservation of objection to jury instruction applies to new trial order as well as appeal), pet. for review denied, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985); 55 Fla.Jur.2d Trial § 127 (1984); see generally Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and, more important, because the instructions, considered as a whole and in the light of the evidence and argument of counsel, in fact fairly and completely presented the issue in question to the jury. See Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mahlo, 45 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1950); Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588, 195 So. 399 (1940); Bibb v. United Grocery Co., 73 Fla. 589, 74 So. 880 (1917); Geo. E. Wood Lumber Co. v. Gipson, 63 Fla. 316, 323, 58 So. 364 (1912); Diez v. State, 359 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Gallagher v. Federal Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert, denied, 354 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1977). A new trial was therefore not justified.
Inasmuch as we disagree with Comreal’s contention on crossappeal that it was entitled to a directed verdict in its favor, we reverse the order granting a new trial with directions to enter judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Cushman & Wakefield.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Arlee Jackson and Mugge Rivers, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Geo. E. Wood Lumber Co. v. Addie P. Gipson by Her Next Friend, 63 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1912)
- Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1940)
- Gallagher v. Fed. Ins. Co., 346 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mahlo, 45 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1950)
- Love v. State, 359 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Bibb v. United Grocery Co., 73 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1917)
- Schorr v. Thaw, 464 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)