Jones v. Jacksonville Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1908 |
| Citation | 56 Fla. 452,47 So. 1 |
| Parties | JONES v. JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.
Action by F. A. P. Jones against the Jacksonville Electric Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial, he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
On a writ of error to an order granting a new trial in an action at law under the statute, the only questions to be considered are those involved in the order granting the new trial.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of trial courts, 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.
The statute provides that a railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons by the running of cars or other machinery, unless the company shall make it appear that its agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence; the presumption in all cases being against the company, but this provision does not create such a presumption as will outweight proofs, or that will require any greater or stronger or more convincing proofs than in any other issue. The statute casts upon the company the burden of affirmatively showing that its agents exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence to prevent the injury complained of.
When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence, and it does not appear upon what ground the motion was granted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court will not reverse the order where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the verdict.
COUNSEL A. H. King, for plaintiff in error.
Kay Doggett & Smith, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, F. A. P. Jones, recovered a judgment for personal injuries against the defendant in error. The court granted a motion for new trial, and the plaintiff took writ of error, as authorized by section 1695 of the General Statutes.
The grounds of the motion for new trial are based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict alleged errors in giving and refusing charges, and the alleged excessive amount of the verdict.
The statute authorizing a writ of error to an order granting a new trial in an action at law provides that the court on such writ of error 'shall review the said order.' Therefore the only questions to be considered on this writ of error are those involved in the order granting the new trial. Winn v. Coggins, 53 Fla. 327, 42 So. 897.
The only error assigned here is the order granting the motion for new trial.
Motions for new trials are addressed to the sound judicial discretion of trial courts, and, where trial courts grant such motions their actions in doing so are 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 Reddick v. Joseph, 35 Fla. 65, 16 So. 781.
A trial court should not grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial