Home Depot U.S.A. Co., Inc. v. Taylor, 95-1424
| Decision Date | 14 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1424,95-1424 |
| Citation | 676 So.2d 479 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1404 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. COMPANY, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Holly L. TAYLOR and Dennis E. Taylor, Jr., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael A. Roe and David B. Kampf, Austin, Leg, Roe, Patsko & Swain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Jack B. Nichols, Orlando, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial on damages only in a personal injury case and an order directing a verdict on an issue regarding liability.
As to the order granting a new trial, this case is controlled by Poole v. Veterans Auto Sales & Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So.2d 189 (Fla.1996) where our supreme court held that orders granting a new trial must comply with the dictates of Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978) even though the order is based upon a defendant's rejection of an order of additur. That is, under the statute, section 768.44, Florida Statutes, if a trial judge orders an additur, and the defendant rejects the additur, then the court must order a new trial on damages, but the trial court must still set out in the order granting the new trial specific sufficient grounds for the award of new trial. It is insufficient to just order a new trial based upon the rejection of a remittitur or an additur. So the order granting a new trial on damages should be quashed on this basis.
However, we find error in the trial court having directed a verdict for appellee on the issue of her comparative negligence, so a new trial on both liability and damages must be had anyway. There is some evidence in the record that perhaps appellee loaded her shopping cart in such a fashion that she was unable to control it when it passed over a crack or expansion joint in the floor. There is also evidence that appellee was aware that she should have used a flatbed cart, instead of a basket cart, to load the boxes of tile for transport to her vehicle. There was also evidence that appellee was pulling the cart rather than pushing it, as is the usual, and perhaps proper, way to operate it. Because the jury must determine who was at fault, and the degree of relative fault, it was error to take that decision from them.
There is a rule used by courts of appeal which is called the "tipsy coachman" rule. It comes to us from Georgia, Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga. 345, by the way...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 907 (Fla. 2002). This principle, referred to as the "tipsy coachman" rule, see Home Depot U.S.A. Co., Inc. v. Taylor, 676 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), arises from the presumption of correctness with which the judgment of the trial court is clothed. See Cohen ......
-
Robertson v. State
...what these cases state that this Court is not to do. 1.Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). 2. In Home Depot U.S.A. Co. v. Taylor, 676 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the Fifth District explained the derivation of the "tipsy coachman rule" as There is a rule used by courts of ap......
-
Childers v. Floyd, No. 08-15590 (11th Cir. 6/8/2010)
...ruling on another ground, an application of § 90.403, which it was permitted to do under state law. Home Depot U.S.A. Co. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 1996). 10. As this language of the court's opinion and the language that follows this footnote indicate, the cour......
-
Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA
...1971). The Fourth District Court of Appeal has referred to this principle as the "tipsy coachman" rule. See Home Depot U.S.A. Co. v. Taylor, 676 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).8 If an appellate court, in considering whether to uphold or overturn a lower court's judgment, is not limited ......
-
Tipping the ole tipsy coachman over in his grave: an inequity of appellate review.
...v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1963) (quoting, Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga. 345 (Ga. 1879); Home Depot U.S.A. Co. v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1996) (providing "the tipsy coachman rule ... comes to us from Georgia, Lee v. Porter, 63 Ga. 345 (Ga. 1879), by way of ......