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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1985

DocketNos. 83-1503, 83-1533

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 463 So. 2d 520 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kaufman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Counsel for appellant, H.L. Edwards Construction Co. stated:

I added all this up at $461,775 [the total of damages suggested as compensable by plaintiff s attorney] and the only thing that I see is Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Virgin [counsel for the plaintiffs] getting rich.

That’s all that I see with $461,000.

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.

Counsel for appellant, H.L. Edwards Construction Co. stated:

I added all this up at $461,775 [the total of damages suggested as compensable by plaintiff s attorney] and the only thing that I see is Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Virgin [counsel for the plaintiffs] getting rich.

That’s all that I see with $461,000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 So. 2d 520, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 426, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-kaufman-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack