Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hicks, 77-1454
Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1454,77-1454 |
Citation | 363 So.2d 628 |
Parties | TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Eddie Brown and Kenneth Brown, Appellants, v. Alzenia HICKS and Robert Hicks, her husband, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
High, Stack, Lazenby & Bender and Alan R. Dakan, Miami, for appellants.
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Coconut Grove, Flinn & Jennings, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, * HENDRY and KEHOE, JJ.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court and insurer of the tortfeasor, appeals from an order granting a new trial on the issue of damages in an automobile negligence case wherein the jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellees, plaintiffs in the trial court, for an amount less than the sum of the medical bills and lost wages.
In pertinent part, the order granting new trial provides as follows:
The sole point on appeal for our consideration is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in entering an order granting a new trial. In light of the recent Florida Supreme Court case of Wackenhut Corporation v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978); and our decision in White v. Martinez, 359 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), it is our opinion that the trial judge did, in fact, abuse his discretion.
In Wackenhut, supra, the Supreme Court opined that orders granting motions for new trial should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may exercise proper appellate review. Mere conclusions to the effect that (1) the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or that (2) the jury was influenced by considerations outside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ligman v. Tardiff, 84-127
...by considerations outside the record, without pointing to record support, are not amenable to judicial review. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The order under review articulated that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was a re......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Burdi, 82-566
...Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978); City of Miami v. Smith, 165 So.2d 748 (Fla.1964); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); White v. Martinez, 359 So.2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see generally, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So.2d 243 (Fla. Beca......
-
Springfield Life Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 78-2101
...resolution of the disputed issues in the case was in fact contrary to the weight of the evidence before it. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 363 So.2d 628 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); see Tye v. Ruark, 179 So.2d 612 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). The plaintiff forcefully argues, relying on Castlewood Internatio......
-
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...3d DCA 1982)(holding that trial court must give express reasons that support its findings for a new trial); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hicks, 363 So.2d 628, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ("[O]rders granting motions for new trial should articulate reasons for so doing so that appellate courts may exer......