Carnegie Hotel Corp. v. Jacobi

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carnegie Hotel Corp. v. Jacobi

202 So. 2d 200, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 1967

DocketNo. 66-777

StatusPublished

This text of 202 So. 2d 200 (Carnegie Hotel Corp. v. Jacobi) 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

Carnegie Hotel Corp. v. Jacobi, 202 So. 2d 200, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals an order granting a new trial. The action was for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s employee acting in the scope of his employment. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The grounds set forth in the order granting the new trial are: (1) the verdict is [201]*201contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the verdict shows that the jury misunderstood the legal effect of the evidence; (3) the verdict upon the evidence presented shocked the judicial conscience of the court. The appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion under the rule announced in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669, and applied in Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 740.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals an order granting a new trial. The action was for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s employee acting in the scope of his employment. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The grounds set forth in the order granting the new trial are: (1) the verdict is [201]*201contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the verdict shows that the jury misunderstood the legal effect of the evidence; (3) the verdict upon the evidence presented shocked the judicial conscience of the court. The appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion under the rule announced in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669, and applied in Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 740.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 2d 200, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnegie-hotel-corp-v-jacobi-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack