Case ID: so2d_696/html/0955-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KMART CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Marcia HERZOG and Max Herzog, Appellees.
    No. 96-0800.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    July 16, 1997.
    Alicia M. Santana, G. Bart Billbrough and Geoffrey B. Marks of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for appellant.
    Kimberly L. Boldt and Patrice A. Talisman of Russo & Talisman, P.A, Miami, and Sear-cy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

We cannot say that the order granting a new trial — on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence — is outside the broad discretion given to trial judges in such matters. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla.1975); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980), Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In affirming the new trial order, however, we do not do so because we agree that a new trial was required as a matter of law.

STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.