Nunberg v. Brodsky

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed an order granting a new trial after conflicting jury verdicts in a negligence action arising from an automobile collision. The court held that the evidence supported jury instructions on contributory negligence and that the trial court's stated grounds did not justify a new trial. The order was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to reinstate the verdicts and enter judgment.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred in concluding that the evidence did not support an instruction on contributory negligence. Competent substantial evidence supported a finding that both drivers were negligent and that each driver's negligence proximately caused or contributed to the collision.
2. A finding that a verdict was not consistent with the evidence, without a determination that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, is insufficient to support an order granting a new trial.
3. The jury's request to have testimony reread, followed by the trial court's refusal and instruction that the jurors rely on their recollection, did not support granting a new trial where counsel did not object and the response was suggested by plaintiffs' counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to instruct the jury on contributory negligence.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial because the verdicts were allegedly inconsistent with the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court properly relied on the jury's request to have testimony reread and the court's refusal of that request as a basis for granting a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded