Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kaufman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kaufman

463 So. 2d 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 426, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12381

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 12, 1985·No. Nos. 83-1503, 83-1533·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following return of a jury verdict in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Kaufman, the trial court granted a new trial solely as to damages. The court based its ruling on what it determined to be a “grossly inadequate” award in light of the damages sustained by Mrs. Kaufman when she slipped and fell as a result of defective pavement. The court found that the jury was prejudiced by improper closing remarks of counsel for appellant, H.L. Edwards Construction Co.*

Noting that a trial judge is in a “much better position than an appellate court to pass on the ultimate correctness of the jury’s verdict,” Pyms v. Meranda, 98 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla.1957); Staib v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), citing Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975), we affirm the trial court’s order. Furthermore, we rely upon the well-established law of Florida that a trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial should not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of abuse. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). We find no abuse of discretion. Appellants’ remaining points lack merit.

Affirmed.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Following return of a jury verdict in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Kaufman, the trial court granted a new trial solely as to damages. The court based its ruling on what it determined to be a “grossly inadequate” award in light of the damages sustained by Mrs. Kaufman when she slipped and fell as a result of defective pavement. The court found that the jury was prejudiced by improper closing remarks of counsel for appellant, H.L. Edwards Construction Co.*

Noting that a trial judge is in a “much better position than an appellate court to pass on the ultimate correctness of the jury’s verdict,” Pyms v. Meranda, 98 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla.1957); Staib v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), citing Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975), we affirm the trial court’s order. Furthermore, we rely upon the well-established law of Florida that a trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial should not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of abuse. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). We find no abuse of discretion. Appellants’ remaining points lack merit.

Affirmed.

Footnotes

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kaufman, 463 So. 2d 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 426, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

463 So. 2d 520 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kaufman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related