North v. Altech Yachts, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-225.,4D01-225. |
| Parties | Jeffrey NORTH and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Appellants, v. ALTECH YACHTS, INC. and Astillero Regnicoli, S.A.I.C.A., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raúl J. Chacón, Jr. of Hayden and Milliken, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
Susan S. Lerner of Kutner, Rubinoff, Bush & Lerner, P.A., Miami, and Perry M. Adair of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Astillero Regnicoli.
Jeffrey North ("North") and Union Insurance Company ("Union") (collectively the "Plaintiffs") appeal a jury verdict in favor of Altech Yachts, Inc. ("Altech") and Astillero Regnicoli ("Regnicoli") (collectively the "Defendants") on the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express and implied warranties in connection with North's purchase of a motor yacht from the Defendants. The Defendants are cross-appealing the trial court's denial of its request for sanctions against the Plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence.
North purchased the vessel from Altech, who at the time was an American distributor of the Argentinian vessel manufacturer Regnicoli. Accompanying the purchase, North received a written warranty providing the following:
North placed the vessel into service, and on one of the first extended voyages of the "Lost Weekend," it sank in rough seas off the coast of Sanibel, Florida.
Union, the insurance carrier with whom North had contracted to insure the vessel, raised the vessel and conducted extensive investigation into the cause of the loss. Upon raising the vessel, Union notified the Defendant Altech of the location at which the vessel would be available for inspection. The Defendant did not inspect the vessel and it was subsequently sold by Union.
Pursuant to the loss of the vessel, North and Union instituted this action against the Defendants alleging liability under strict liability, negligence in manufacture, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
During the trial, the Plaintiffs' tendered the testimony of two experts regarding marine construction and seaworthiness. They testified in material part that their opinion was that deviation from the architect's design was responsible for the sinking of the "Lost Weekend." More specifically, Plaintiffs' experts testified that excess weight added by the Defendant's deviation from materials specifications, exacerbated by material changes in fittings and seals resulted in an inability of the vessel to stay afloat.
The Defendants tendered no expert witness testimony. However, they did establish an alternative theory of loss through extensive cross-examination of the Plaintiffs' witnesses. Specifically, the Defendants advanced the theory that inexperience on the part of North as a vessel captain, combined with undisputed rough seas immediately preceding the sinking, caused the loss of the "Lost Weekend."
At the conclusion of the parties' cases each moved for directed verdicts. The trial court granted the Defendants' motion and entered a directed verdict in favor of the Defendants on the claims of strict liability and negligent manufacture, and reserved judgment on the remaining counts of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
The trial court instructed the jury on express warranty and breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, and a verdict was returned in favor of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs moved for a new trial which the trial court denied with the following statement in the record:
It is essentially this statement upon which the Plaintiffs rely in challenging the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Plaintiffs argue that the foregoing statement evidences a finding by the trial court judge that a gross miscarriage of justice occurred, and therefore, his failure to grant a new trial was an abuse of discretion.
The trial judge's comment sets forth two grounds upon which a new trial could potentially have been granted. First, the jury was influenced by matters outside the record. Second, there was a lack of credible evidence to support the verdict.
A trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Brown v. Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 495 (Fla.1999).
When a motion for a new trial is granted, the trial judge's finding that the jury considered matters outside the record must be supported by concomitant citation to record evidence. See Wackenhut v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430, 435 (Fla.1978). Therefore, had the trial court judge in this case granted a new trial based upon his statement without citation to record evidence, this court would have no choice but to reverse and remand. But, the fact of the matter is that, notwithstanding the personal belief of the judge, the trial court denied the motion. This does not dispose of this matter entirely however.
As for the second ground, that there was a severe lack of credible evidence to support the verdict, we find that the trial judge applied the incorrect standard —that is, substantial competent evidence. On a motion for a new trial, the verdict will be set aside where the trial court determines that it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. See id. Although the trial judge ultimately denied the motion, the analysis process necessary to reach a conclusion on the question of whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, is substantially different from that necessary to determine whether the verdict was supported by competent evidence.
The defense counsel's argument was based on the premise that a new trial should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cordoba v. Rodriguez
...a new trial based on incidents occurring during trial is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See North v. Altech Yachts, Inc., 815 So.2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, where a trial court grants a new trial on the ground of unpreserved error, the court is not operating within ......