Lyman v. Fanta
Lyman v. Fanta
Opinion of the Court
By these consolidated appeals, we are called upon to review the correctness of a trial court’s order granting a motion for new trial on liability and damages, in an automobile negligence action.
Examining this ruling in light of the applicable authorities as to the discretion of a trial judge in entering such an order [Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Spearman Distributing Company v. Boyette, Fla.App.1968, 205 So.2d 690; Leggett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 16], as to the burden of the appellant to upset such an order granting a new trial contrasted with an order denying a new trial [Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Cross v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 21; Wheeler v. Nelson, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 11], we fail to find that the appellant has made error appear in the rendition of the order. Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Pittman v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 279; Bullard v. Canale, Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 237.
Because this matter must be retried, we make the following observations: Although the trial judge was correct in granting a new trial because of comments made about certain pictures depicting the scene of the accident and reference to certain tire marks shown thereon, we believe that upon a retrial these pictures could be admitted into evidence if a proper predicate is made for same and appropriate cau
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.