Kight v. Wilson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kight v. Wilson

167 So. 2d 906

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1964

DocketNo. 64-35

StatusPublished

This text of 167 So. 2d 906 (Kight v. Wilson) 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

Kight v. Wilson, 167 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

CARROLL, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial following the rendition of a verdict for $7,500 in favor of the plaintiff in a personal injury action. The trial court ordered a remittitur of $3,500 or a new trial. The ground recited in the order was that the verdict was shocking to the court.

The granting of a remittitur by a trial judge involves his consideration of the entire record (Kovacs v. Venetian Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 611), and on appeal from an order granting a new trial for excessiveness it is necessary to look to the record to determine whether ex-cessiveness is disclosed. Bach v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706; Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 885. We are unable to do that here because the record presented is incomplete. Substantial portions of the evidence were omitted. See Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 425; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801; Pan American Metal Products, Inc. v. Healey, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 96. Those reasons which require affirmance here are aided by the presumption in favor of correctness of the ruling granting new trial. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.

Affirmed.

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

CARROLL, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial following the rendition of a verdict for $7,500 in favor of the plaintiff in a personal injury action. The trial court ordered a remittitur of $3,500 or a new trial. The ground recited in the order was that the verdict was shocking to the court.

The granting of a remittitur by a trial judge involves his consideration of the entire record (Kovacs v. Venetian Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 611), and on appeal from an order granting a new trial for excessiveness it is necessary to look to the record to determine whether ex-cessiveness is disclosed. Bach v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706; Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 885. We are unable to do that here because the record presented is incomplete. Substantial portions of the evidence were omitted. See Johnson v. Roberts, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 425; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801; Pan American Metal Products, Inc. v. Healey, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 96. Those reasons which require affirmance here are aided by the presumption in favor of correctness of the ruling granting new trial. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kight-v-wilson-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack