Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell
| Decision Date | 24 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 55501,55501 |
| Citation | 384 So.2d 145 |
| Parties | BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Grace I. Sagcal, and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Petitioners, v. Clayton A. BELL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melissa Y. Bell, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William M. Howell of Howell, Howell, Liles, Braddock & Milton, Jacksonville, for petitioners.
Hugh M. Davenport of Smith, Davenport, Bloom & Harden, Jacksonville, for respondent.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal, reported at 363 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), which reversed the trial court's order directing a new trial on the issue of damages. We find conflict with Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975), and Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959). We have jurisdiction. 1 We quash the decision of the district court and reinstate the trial court's order directing a new trial.
The relevant facts reflect that the trial concerned damages only, the defendant having admitted liability. The jury returned a verdict for $450,000. Upon the defendant's motion for a new trial or for a remittitur, the trial court granted a new trial, finding: (1) the size of the verdict was grossly excessive and shocked the conscience of the court; (2) the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) the jury considered matters outside the record, including the amount of taxes which might have to be paid on the jury verdict, the amount of attorney's fees, and the amount of other costs and expenses; and (4) plaintiff's counsel had made an improper "Golden Rule" argument in his closing statement. The district court reversed the trial court's order for a new trial and remanded for reinstatement, finding the verdict was neither excessive nor contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury's consideration of matters outside the record was harmless; and the remarks made by counsel were timely objected to by defendant's counsel and a sufficient cautionary instruction was given by the trial court. In reversing the trial court, the district court did not expressly find that the trial court abused its discretion.
In entering its order granting a new trial, we find that the trial court properly applied the dictates of this Court in Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978). We further find that the district court failed to properly apply the broad discretion rule granted to trial courts as expressed in our decisions in Castlewood and Cloud. We stated in Cloud :
When a motion for new trial is made it is directed to the sound, broad discretion of the trial judge, . . . who because of his contact with the trial and his observation of the behavior of those upon whose testimony the finding of fact must be based is better positioned than any other one person fully to comprehend the processes by which the ultimate decision of the triers of fact, the jurors, is reached, . . . .
Inasmuch as such motions are granted in the exercise of a sound, broad discretion the ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that it has been abused. . . . (Citations omitted.)
The trial judge is granted this discretionary power because it is impossible to establish a strict rule of law for every conceivable situation which could arise in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rety v. Green
...whether "reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court...." Baptist Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla.1980). It should be borne in mind, however, that the trial court itself has a limited discretion to interfere with a jury v......
-
Tuttle v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd.
...its reasons so that the appellate court may then ascertain whether the trial court has abused its discretion. Baptist Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Stewart Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Bevis, 294 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla.1974). In Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (F......
-
Wallace v. P. L. Dodge Memorial Hospital
...on appeal. Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Rivera v. White, 386 So.2d 1233 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); see Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975). To the extent that Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 3......
-
Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. Corp. v. Silva
...418 So.2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Sosa v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 435 So.2d 821 (Fla.1983); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980); Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Garmas, 440 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984); ......
-
Appellate standards of review.
...with other discretionary acts, is whether the court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court in Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 1980) explained the test applied to such In reviewing this type of discretionary act of the trial court, the appellate court sho......