CHRISTINE F. LYMAN, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF HENRY LYMAN, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES L. FANTA AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES; CHRISTINE F. LYMAN AND THE CONNECTICUT BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY LYMAN, DECEASED, APPELLANTS, V. CHARLES L. FANTA AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 an appeal of a trial court's order granting a new trial in an automobile negligence action. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no error in the trial judge's discretion, but provided guidance on the admissibility of evidence and jury instructions for the retrial.
No, the trial court did not err in granting the motion for a new trial. The appellate court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate error in the trial judge's ruling.
[1] A trial court's order granting a motion for a new trial is presumed correct and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.
[2] A trial judge has broad discretion in granting a new trial, and such an order will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
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 intelligence“Examining this ruling in light of the applicable authorities as to the discretion of a trial judge in entering such an order [...] as to the burden of the appellant to upset such an order granting a new trial contrasted with an order denying a new trial [...] we fail to find that the appellant has made error appear in the rendition of the order.”
This quote establishes the standard of review and the appellate court's conclusion that the appellant did not meet their burden to show the trial court erred.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted a motion for a new trial on liability and damages in an automobile negligence case. The appellant appealed this decision, argu…
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 Predicate For Admission Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By these consolidated appeals, we are called upon to review the correctness of a trial court’s order granting a motion for new trial on liability and damages, in an automobile negligence action.
Examining this ruling in light of the applicable authorities as to the discretion of a trial judge in entering such an order [Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Spearman Distributing Company v. Boyette, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 690; Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 16], as to the burden of the appellant to upset such an order granting a new trial contrasted with an order denying a new trial [Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Cross v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 21; Wheeler v. Nelson, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 11], we fail to find that the appellant has made error appear in the rendition of the order. Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Pittman v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 279; Bullard v. Canale, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 237.
Because this matter must be retried, we make the following observations: Although the trial judge was correct in granting a new trial because of comments made about certain pictures depicting the scene of the accident and reference to certain tire marks shown thereon, we believe that upon a retrial these pictures could be admitted into evidence if a proper predicate is made for same and appropriate cau tionary instructions are given in connection therewith. Further, although the trial judge in the order granting new trial indicated, as one of his grounds, that he had erroneously charged on the statute relative to sounding a horn warning and by the giving of standard jury instruction No. 4.-11, 31 F.S.A., we believe that the charge in reference to the statute was appropriate under the circumstances to be considered by the jury in arriving at its determination of whether or not the driver of the automobile used reasonable care under the circumstances.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lolita M. Waddell & Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Trudy Frank Faust, 310 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…erdict cannot stand and a new trial must be and is ordered.” [*418] Our review of the record, in the light of the arguments presented, fails to show an abuse of discretion. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Lyman v. Fanta, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 527. Appellant’s remaining point urges error upon the failure of the trial court to grant a new trial as to liability only. This point does not present reversible error under the circumstances of this case. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Spearman Distrib. Co. v. Boyette, 205 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Bullard v. Canale, 260 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 221 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Pittman v. Smith, 252 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Wheeler v. Nelson, 229 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Allen v. Taylor, 190 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)