Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

508 So. 2d 495, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1433, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8710

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2040

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 495 (Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.) 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

Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 508 So. 2d 495, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1433, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8710 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although we agree with the appellant that a question for the jury’s determination is presented when the evidence is viewed, as it must be, in a light most favorable to her, and that, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to have the verdict for the plaintiff set aside and a judgment entered in accordance with the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, see Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we do not agree that the appellant is thus entitled to have the jury verdict in her favor reinstated. Instead, based upon the trial court’s express and entirely justified further finding that “the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence and does not comport with justice in this case,” the judgment for the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although we agree with the appellant that a question for the jury’s determination is presented when the evidence is viewed, as it must be, in a light most favorable to her, and that, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to have the verdict for the plaintiff set aside and a judgment entered in accordance with the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, see Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we do not agree that the appellant is thus entitled to have the jury verdict in her favor reinstated. Instead, based upon the trial court’s express and entirely justified further finding that “the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight and probative force of the evidence and does not comport with justice in this case,” the judgment for the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 495, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1433, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack