Proper standard of review and appropriate remedy when appellate court reviews trial court’s order granting a new trial.
In this appeal from an automobile accident case, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the proper standard of review, and the appropriate remedy, when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order granting a new trial—specifically, on the grounds that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, where the trial court’s order was premised, at least in part, on an error of law. Here, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court’s order was premised [2] on an error of law—namely, that the jury could not reject uncontroverted testimony of the experts.
fThe court held that an appellate court properly applies a de novo standard of review to a trial court’s conclusions of law in an order granting a new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence, [3] giving no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. However, although a trial court’s conclusions of law are not entitled to deference, its findings of facts and determinations of credibility are still entitled to deference because of the trial court’s superior vantage point of having been present during the entire trial.
Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014