LOLITA M. WADDELL AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
TRUDY FRANK FAUST, APPELLEE
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 trial court properly exercised its discretion in ordering a new trial after finding the jury's apportionment of negligence (75% defendant, 25% plaintiff) was clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the appellate court affirmed.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial when it finds a jury's negligence apportionment is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[1] A trial court may order a new trial when it finds a jury's apportionment of comparative negligence is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence, based on the tr…
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 intelligence“the evidence is overwhelming that the sole cause of this accident was the negligence of the Defendant”
Trial judge's reasoning for ordering new trial based on jury verdict being against manifest weight of evidence
In a negligence case, a jury found the defendant 75% negligent and the plaintiff 25% negligent. The trial judge, observing the jury and witnesses firs…
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 Inadequate Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals an order granting a new trial after a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, where the trial court held the verdict to be inadequate due to a jury finding that the defendant was 75% negligent and the plaintiff 25% negligent. The trial judge stated:
“In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cloud v. Fallís, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669, and the other authorities cited in the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law dated January 2, 1974, and giving due consideration to the fact that the Court was in a position to make firsthand observations of the jury and the witnesses during the course of the trial, I find that the determination by this jury that the Plaintiff was 25% responsible for the accident is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that the sole cause of this accident was the negligence of the Defendant. The jury verdict cannot stand and a new trial must be and is ordered.” 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Lyman v. Charles L. Fanta & the Travelers Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)