B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Anderman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Anderman

279 So. 2d 907, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8035

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 1973

DocketNos. 72-247, 72-259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 So. 2d 907 (B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Anderman) 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

B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Anderman, 279 So. 2d 907, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8035 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In an action for personal injuries the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants, upon which judgment was entered. The plaintiffs’ timely motion for a new trial was granted, the court finding that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is this order which the defendants have appealed.

Recognizing, as we do, that the trial court exercises a broad discretion in the granting of a motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that such ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse, Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, we have reviewed the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. Russo v. Clark, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 1. We conclude that it is. The verdict not only is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, but is in fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and the judgment thereon.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur. MAGER, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In an action for personal injuries the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants, upon which judgment was entered. The plaintiffs’ timely motion for a new trial was granted, the court finding that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is this order which the defendants have appealed.

Recognizing, as we do, that the trial court exercises a broad discretion in the granting of a motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that such ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse, Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, we have reviewed the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. Russo v. Clark, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 1. We conclude that it is. The verdict not only is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, but is in fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and the judgment thereon.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur. MAGER, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 So. 2d 907, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-w-butler-inc-v-anderman-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack