Jones v. Stevenson, 91-1766

• Decision Date: 08 May 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-1766,91-1766
• Citation: 598 So.2d 219
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Weekly D1172 Ralph Cecil JONES, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Margaret J. STEVENSON, etc., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 219

598 So.2d 219

17 Fla. L. Weekly D1172

Ralph Cecil JONES, Jr., et al., Appellants, v.Margaret J. STEVENSON, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 91-1766.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fifth District.

May 8, 1992.

John A. Forgas, III and Harold H. Catlin of Saalfield, Catlin, Coulson, & Etheridge, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.

Jeffrey R. Garvin of Garvin & Tripp, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellee Stevenson.

No appearance for appelleeMartin Paving Co.

GOSHORN, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from an order granting a new trial entered after the jury found that the appellants were not liable on Stevenson's wrongful death claim.We reverse.

In deciding Stevenson's motion for a new trial, the trial court properly considered the credibility of the witnesses.SeeSmith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868, 870(Fla.1988).Although the trial court expressly found that the witnesses for both sides were credible, the trial court concluded that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.This conclusion was error.A jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only when the evidence is "clear, obvious, and indisputable."Perenic v. Castelli, 353 So.2d 1190, 1192(Fla. 4th DCA1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1211(Fla.1978).

In this case, the evidence was conflicting, but equally compelling in favor of both the appellants and Stevenson.Therefore the issue of whether the appellants were negligent was a factual dispute properly resolved by the jury.Given the court's finding that the witnesses for both sides were credible, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly reweighing the evidence.SeePhar-Mor of Florida, Inc. v. Steuernagel...