CAMILLE JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
AIRPORT RENT-A-CAR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JAMES HOWARD KING, 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.
Plaintiff Jones appealed a jury verdict finding no negligence against Airport Rent-A-Car and its driver King in a personal injury case. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial and holding that any error regarding the excluded deposition was harmless.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial because the jury's verdict was based on competent substantial evidence. The court also found that even if error occurred in excluding the deposition, it was harmless error that did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of the appellant.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial will be overturned only upon a clear demonstration of abuse of discretion by the appellant.
[2] A jury verdict based upon competent substantial evidence will not be deemed an abuse of discretion when denying a motion for a new trial.
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“in order to overturn a trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial, it is incumbent upon an appellant to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion”
Establishes the standard of review for appeals challenging denial of motions for new trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Jones was allegedly struck by a vehicle owned by Airport Rent-A-Car and driven by James Howard King. The case was tried before a jury, which…
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 Bodily Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
[*105] HENDRY, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant sued defendants-ap-pellees for damages for bodily injuries when appellant was allegedly struck by a vehicle owned by appellee, Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc. and driven by appellee-King. The trial of the case before a jury resulted in a not guilty verdict for appellees on the issue of negligence. Appellant appeals from the judgment for appellees entered on the verdict and from the denial of her motion for new trial.
Appellant claims as error the trial judge’s refusal to grant her motion for new trial, in that the verdict of the jury was clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We have held that in order to overturn a trial judge’s denial of a motion for new trial, it is incumbent upon an appellant to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). In that the jury rendered its verdict based upon competent substantial evidence, no abuse of discretion has been shown on the part of the trial judge in denying appellant’s motion for new trial. Billman v. National Merchandise Co., Inc., 311 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Jennings v. City of Winter Park, 250 So. 2d 900 (Fla.4th DCA 1971).
The only other contention of appellant that need be discussed is that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to allow appellant to use appellee-King’s deposition at trial for impeachment purposes. Said deposition did not appear in the court file at the time of trial and only after trial did appellant’s counsel offer an explanation, by way of affidavit, as to its whereabouts. Apparently, the deposition, which had been taken more than one year prior to trial, had been transcribed and filed some two working days before trial, but had not yet been removed from the clerk’s office to the court file. Appellees had neither been notified of the transcription of the deposition nor given a copy of said deposition prior to trial.
After having carefully reviewed the record in the proceedings, along with the excluded deposition, we are of the opinion that the complained of act could not have injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant and therefore, error, if any, was harmless. Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1975).
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
SDG Dadeland Assocs., Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…the denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. See Southwin, Inc. v. Verde, 806 So. 2d 586, 587-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Salnave v. Pub. Health Trust of Dade County, 624 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Jones v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 342 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). A trial court’s discretion regarding counsel’s improper arguments to the jury is guided by whether the comments and arguments were “highly prejudicial and inflammatory.” Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N. A, 666 So. 2d 580, 585…
-
Cedars OF Lebanon Hosp. Corp. v. Orlando Silva, M.D., 476 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…v. Garmas, 440 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 848 (Fla.1984); Salkay v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 398 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 402 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1981); Jones v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 342 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). There is no disagreement among the parties that a partial new trial limited to a single issue is inappropriate when the new trial is necessitated by some error at trial which has prejudiced the jury broadly on all issues. See, e…
-
Scandinavian World Cruises (bahamas) v. Cronin, 509 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…affirmatively demonstrate from the record that the trial court’s order denying its post-trial motion represents a gross abuse of discretion. Seaboard System R.R., Inc. v. Peeples, 475 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Jones v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 342 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The discretionary power to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is given to the trial judge because of his direct and superior vantage point. Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980). In reviewing t…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- PIX Shoes OF Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, 201 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Clark W. Jennings v. City OF Winter Park & Ins. Co. of N. Am., 250 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Billman v. Nat'l Merchandise Co., Inc., 311 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)