Case ID: so2d_456/html/0972-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONKLIN AMUSEMENTS, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Pamela ROSS, a minor, By and Through her parents and next friends, Jannine ROSS and Arthur Ross, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    No. 84-24.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 9, 1984.
    Lanza, Sevier, Womack & O’Connor and Hector J. Lombana, Coral Gables, for appellant/ cross-appellee.
    Appel & Brown, Greene & Cooper and Joan M. Bolotin, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.
    Before NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ. .
   PER CURIAM.

Concluding that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s grant of a new trial and that, therefore, the appellant has not shown an abuse of discretion, we affirm the order under review. See Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Staib v. Ferrari, Inc., 391 So.2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). On the appellee’s cross-appeal, we affirm the order denying her motion for a directed verdict as to liability.

Affirmed.