Aberson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Citation: 68 Fla. 196,67 So. 44
• Parties: ABERSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Decision Date: 06 November 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

67 So. 44

68 Fla. 196

ABERSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

November 6, 1914

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Action by Charles E. Aberson against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, new trial granted and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

On writ of error to an order granting a new trial, only the order and the motion on which it is predicated can be considered.

The principles that govern in directing verdicts and in granting new trials after verdict are not the same.

There may be no inconsistency in granting new trial in a case in which a request for a directed verdict was denied. An order granting a new trial may be sustained by the appellate court when a directed verdict would not be approved.

A verdict on the evidence should be directed for one party only when the evidence would not be legally sufficient to sustain a verdict for the opposite party. A new trial may be granted on the evidence when, in the opinion of the court, the verdict is contrary to the manifest probative force of the evidence and the justice of the cause.

After verdict rendered, the trial court may, for good cause, set it aside and grant a new trial in appropriate proceedings; but this judicial power and discretion to grant a new trial should not be confounded with the more limited authority to direct a verdict for one party only when a finding for the opposite party should be unlawful.

After a verdict is duly found, it should not be disturbed by the trial court, on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support it, unless it appears from the entire case that the verdict is against the manifest probative force of the evidence and the legal rights of the parties, thereby showing that the jury were not governed by the evidence or misapplied the law in making the finding.

A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court; and, where a trial court grants such a motion, the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears by the record.

An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.

There are so many matters occurring in the course and progress of a judicial trial that, in the opinion of the judge who tried the case, may affect the merits and justice of the cause, to the substantial injury of one of the parties, that of necessity a large discretion should be accorded to the trial court in granting a new trial, to the end that the administration of justice may be facilitated; and the appellate court will not reverse an order granting a new trial, unless it clearly appears that a judicial discretion has been abused in its exercise, resulting in injustice, or that the law has been violated.

A stronger showing is required to reverse an order allowing a new trial than to reverse one denying it.

Where the trial court grants a new trial, containing several grounds, without stating any ground upon which the ruling was based, the order will be affirmed, if any ground of the motion is sufficient to authorize the granting of the new trial. And it must be assumed that the court based the order on the ground that warrants it.

Where the evidence on a material issue in a cause is conflicting and it does not so preponderate in favor of the verdict as to show an abuse of discretion or the violation of any provision or settled principle of law in granting a new trial, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed on writ of error.

COUNSEL H. S. Phillips and H. S. Hampton, both of Tampa for plaintiff in error.

Sparkman & Carter, of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The plaintiff in error brought an action against the railroad company under the statute to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of his minor child, who was struck, while on the railroad right of way, by the locomotive of a passing train. At the trial the court denied a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and the court granted a motion for a new trial. The plaintiff took writ of error under the statute.

On writ of error to an order granting a new trial only the order and the motion on which it is predicated can be considered. The principles that govern in directing verdicts and in granting new trials after verdict are not the same. There may be no inconsistency in granting new trial in a case in which a request for a directed verdict was denied. An order granting a new trial may be sustained by the appellate court when a directed verdict would not be approved.

A verdict on the evidence should be directed for one party only, when the evidence would not...