State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Painter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Painter

402 So. 2d 61, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20738

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 12, 1981·No. No. 79-1627·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is affirmed. See, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Weems v. Dawson, 352 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Although none of the parties, nor the trial court in its order granting a new trial, has directed our attention to the verdict in this cause, our decision is bolstered by its inconsistency. In its verdict the jury found for the plaintiffs and against no one of the defendants. It then determined the plaintiffs’ damages to be zero. At the new trial a proper form of verdict should be utilized.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is affirmed. See, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Weems v. Dawson, 352 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Although none of the parties, nor the trial court in its order granting a new trial, has directed our attention to the verdict in this cause, our decision is bolstered by its inconsistency. In its verdict the jury found for the plaintiffs and against no one of the defendants. It then determined the plaintiffs’ damages to be zero. At the new trial a proper form of verdict should be utilized.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Painter, 402 So. 2d 61, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20738 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

402 So. 2d 61 (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Painter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related