Grant v. Williams, No. 6606

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtALLEN; While affirming our decision in Cloud v. Fallis; SHANNON, J., and FUSSELL, CARROLL W.
Citation190 So.2d 23
Docket NumberNo. 6606
Decision Date12 August 1966
PartiesEsther W. GRANT, Appellant, v. Leon S. WILLIAMS and Elizabeth A. Williams, his wife, Appellees.

Page 23

190 So.2d 23
Esther W. GRANT, Appellant,
v.
Leon S. WILLIAMS and Elizabeth A. Williams, his wife, Appellees.
No. 6606.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug. 12, 1966.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1966.

Thomas A. Clark, and Sylvia Hardaway, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for appellant.

William W. White, Jr., of McClain, Thompson, Turbiville, White & Davis, Tampa, for appellees.

ALLEN, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a negligence case as to damages for the plaintiff-husband only. The plaintiffs, Leon S. Williams and Elizabeth A. Williams, are husband and wife and the husband used solely for the loss of his wife's services, society and consortium. The wife sued for her expenses, pain and suffering and was awarded the sum of

Page 24

$3,250. Although the jury found for both plaintiffs, it assessed the husband's loss at zero.

The able trial judge, in his order, stated:

'FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion for New Trial upon the issue of damages only be and the same is hereby granted and a new trial is hereby granted as to the plaintiff, Leon S. W. Williams, for the reason that the zero verdict returned for Mr. Williams by the jury is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence in that the evidence offered by the plaintiff husband on the subject of loss of consortium, companionship and society of the wife was uncontradicted by any evidence otherwise adduced during the trial and the Court was surprised by the zero verdict; however, the sole issue to be submitted in the new trial should be the said plaintiff's loss of consortium, companionship and society of the wife, all other issues and elements of damages having been previously submitted and determined by the jury; and it is

'FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion for New Trial as to the plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Williams, be and the same is hereby denied for the reason that said verdict is neither so inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience or to indicate that the jury was unduly influenced in any manner, and the Court declines to set aside the determination of the jury as to the plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Williams.'

In a recent case, Fejer v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 438, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a new trial on the question of the husband's damages. Here the record clearly supported the husband's claim of damages because of the introduction of his medical bills, and the wife did not ask for such damages, thus the husband was entitled to a new trial when the jury returned a verdict for him of no dollars. However, this case is factually different from the case now before this court, as the wife was awarded damages for expenses, pain and suffering, and the husband did not request nor prove such damages.

On this court's docket for oral arguments on July 28, 1966, the date upon which the present case was argued, four of the five cases docketed involved appeals from orders granting new trials.

We have observed from opinions of various appellate courts that we are again getting in the same condition, which existed prior to this court's opinion in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 264, cert. denied 110 So.2d 669 (1959), in an opinion written for the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Thomas. Some of the opinions have used the substantial evidence rule or the broad discretion rule, while other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Zarow-Smith v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Civ. No. 94-4946 (JAP).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 24, 1997
    ...no damages were awarded for the value of the decedent's care and services, a new trial was ordered on damages only. See Grant v. Williams, 190 So.2d 23 (Fla.App. 1966) (emphasizing the discretion given to the trial judge in affirming his decision to order a new trial); Hogue v. Wilson, 51 A......
  • Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota, No. 67--374
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 15, 1968
    ...an area of factual conflict. Brown v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., Fla.App., 1967, 196 So.2d 465; Grant v. Williams, Fla.App., 1966, 190 So.2d 23, and Florida Power Corporation v. Smith (and Fleming), Fla.App., 1967, 202 So.2d 872. But especially is the rule applicable in a case where the Co......
  • Ward v. Orange Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc., Nos. 12
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 30, 1966
    ...innumerable decisions culminating in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669. As noted by Judge Allen in Grant v. Williams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 23, although it was apparently the intention of the court to settle the matter of review of orders granting new trials in Cloud v. Fallis, nev......
  • Danek v. Hoffman, No. 6133
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1966
    ...an opinion in which we affirmed the circuit judge of Pinellas County in an appeal from an order granting a new trial (Grant v. Williams, 190 So.2d 23). We pointed out in Grant that Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 264, cert. denied 110 So.2d 669 (1959), discussed the two lines of op......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Zarow-Smith v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Civ. No. 94-4946 (JAP).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • January 24, 1997
    ...no damages were awarded for the value of the decedent's care and services, a new trial was ordered on damages only. See Grant v. Williams, 190 So.2d 23 (Fla.App. 1966) (emphasizing the discretion given to the trial judge in affirming his decision to order a new trial); Hogue v. Wilson, 51 A......
  • Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota, No. 67--374
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 15, 1968
    ...an area of factual conflict. Brown v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., Fla.App., 1967, 196 So.2d 465; Grant v. Williams, Fla.App., 1966, 190 So.2d 23, and Florida Power Corporation v. Smith (and Fleming), Fla.App., 1967, 202 So.2d 872. But especially is the rule applicable in a case where the Co......
  • Ward v. Orange Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc., Nos. 12
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 30, 1966
    ...innumerable decisions culminating in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669. As noted by Judge Allen in Grant v. Williams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 23, although it was apparently the intention of the court to settle the matter of review of orders granting new trials in Cloud v. Fallis, nev......
  • Danek v. Hoffman, No. 6133
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1966
    ...an opinion in which we affirmed the circuit judge of Pinellas County in an appeal from an order granting a new trial (Grant v. Williams, 190 So.2d 23). We pointed out in Grant that Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 264, cert. denied 110 So.2d 669 (1959), discussed the two lines of op......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT