Dikun v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dikun v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.

581 So. 2d 910, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4768, 1991 WL 86822

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1991

DocketNos. 89-1758, 89-1815

StatusPublished

This text of 581 So. 2d 910 (Dikun v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.) 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

Dikun v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., 581 So. 2d 910, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4768, 1991 WL 86822 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting a new trial to appellee, John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., and denying that appellee’s renewed motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability. While we may not agree with all of the reasons given by the trial court, we conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown in the grant of a new trial. Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980). In particular, we believe the trial court was entitled to consider its failure to give an instruction on the need for a unanimous verdict, in conjunction with the jury’s subsequent confusion on this issue as a basis for the grant of a new trial. In addition, we believe the court could consider its limitation of final arguments, individually, and in combination with the jury issue, as a basis for determining that the ends of justice required a new trial. And, while we are affirming the denial of a directed verdict, we note that this issue was very close, a factor also indirectly supporting the grant of a new trial.

ANSTEAD, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting a new trial to appellee, John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., and denying that appellee’s renewed motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability. While we may not agree with all of the reasons given by the trial court, we conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown in the grant of a new trial. Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980). In particular, we believe the trial court was entitled to consider its failure to give an instruction on the need for a unanimous verdict, in conjunction with the jury’s subsequent confusion on this issue as a basis for the grant of a new trial. In addition, we believe the court could consider its limitation of final arguments, individually, and in combination with the jury issue, as a basis for determining that the ends of justice required a new trial. And, while we are affirming the denial of a directed verdict, we note that this issue was very close, a factor also indirectly supporting the grant of a new trial.

ANSTEAD, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 910, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4768, 1991 WL 86822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dikun-v-john-crane-houdaille-inc-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack