Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Cooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Cooper

721 So. 2d 832, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15868, 1998 WL 876943

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2241

StatusPublished

This text of 721 So. 2d 832 (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Cooper) 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

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Cooper, 721 So. 2d 832, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15868, 1998 WL 876943 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. [Winn-Dixie], appeals from that portion of an order denying its motion for a new trial on liability, and the plaintiff, Rosa Cooper, cross-appeals from that portion of an order granting Winn-Dixie’s motion for a new trial on damages. We affirm, in part, and reverse in part.

First, on the direct appeal, we find that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial on liability where comparative negligence is an issue properly left to the jury and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Rowlands v. Signal Constr. Corp., 549 So.2d 1380, 1383 (Fla.1989). Therefore, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order denying a new trial on liability.

Next, on the cross-appeal, a review of the record shows that Winn-Dixie failed to raise its objection to the inconsistency of the verdict before the jury was discharged thereby depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct any alleged error. Sweet Paper Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 603 So.2d 109, 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). This failure to object constituted a waiver. Sweet Paper Sales, 603 So.2d at 110. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order granting a new trial on damages and remand for entry of judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. [Winn-Dixie], appeals from that portion of an order denying its motion for a new trial on liability, and the plaintiff, Rosa Cooper, cross-appeals from that portion of an order granting Winn-Dixie’s motion for a new trial on damages. We affirm, in part, and reverse in part.

First, on the direct appeal, we find that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial on liability where comparative negligence is an issue properly left to the jury and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Rowlands v. Signal Constr. Corp., 549 So.2d 1380, 1383 (Fla.1989). Therefore, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order denying a new trial on liability.

Next, on the cross-appeal, a review of the record shows that Winn-Dixie failed to raise its objection to the inconsistency of the verdict before the jury was discharged thereby depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct any alleged error. Sweet Paper Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 603 So.2d 109, 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). This failure to object constituted a waiver. Sweet Paper Sales, 603 So.2d at 110. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order granting a new trial on damages and remand for entry of judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 So. 2d 832, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15868, 1998 WL 876943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winn-dixie-stores-inc-v-cooper-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack