HYGEMA HOUSE MOVERS, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NELLE R. MCDONALD AND JOHN W. MCDONALD, 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.
This case involves a negligence action where the trial court granted new trials for both plaintiffs after separate jury verdicts. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting the new trials.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting new trials to both the plaintiff husband and the plaintiff wife.
“In view of the rule announced in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 264, certiorari denied Fla. 1959, 110 So. 2d 669, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a new trial to the plaintiff husband.”
This quote establishes the legal standard applied by the court to review the trial court's decision regarding the husband's new trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband and wife sued for damages resulting from an automobile accident. Separate jury verdicts were rendered for each plaintiff. The plaintiffs mov…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
In this negligence action by a husband and wife for damages resulting from an automobile accident separate verdicts were rendered for each. Being dissatisfied with the jury awards, the plaintiffs moved for and were granted new trials. Defendant appeals.
In view of the rule announced in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 264, certiorari denied Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a new trial to the plaintiff husband. Applying that rule to the award of a new trial upon the issues made by the claim of the plaintiff wife, while it is evident that the trial court’s action in that particular is supportable only on the theory that errors committed by the jury in rendering its verdict upon the claim of the plaintiff husband necessarily permeated the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff wife, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in the premises.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, and STUR-GIS and CARROLL, DONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. Duval Eng'g & Contracting Co., 128 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…36 So. 2d 421; Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 183, 183 So. 335. We are not unmindful of the broad discretion vested in trial courts to grant new trials. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla., 110 So. 2d 669, 673. In Hygema House Movers, Inc., v. McDonald, Fla.App., 125 So. 2d 902, this court affirmed an order granting a new trial on the authority of Cloud v. Fallís, but in Hygema the jury had apparently ignored the uncontradicted evidence. The case on review, however, does not fall within the rules of Cloud or Hygema. In Clo…
-
Kruse v. Santangelo, 143 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Russo v. Clark, Fla.1962, — So. 2d -; Hendrick v. Strazzula, Fla.1961, 135 So. 2d 1; Hygema House Movers v. McDonald, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 902; and Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669. SHANNON, C. J., and KANNER and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
-
Boyhan v. Brown-Orlando, Inc., 144 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Russo v. Clark, Fla. 1962, - So. 2d-; Hygema House Movers v. McDonald, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 902; and Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669. SHANNON, C. J., ALLEN, J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 107 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)