IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 

February 11, 2015 

MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, ) 

a foreign corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-1295 

 ) 

MICHAEL CATINELLA and EILEEN ) 

CATINELLA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

________________________________ ) 

BY ORDER OF THE COURT: 

 Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. The prior opinion dated December 3, 

2014, is withdrawn, and the attached corrected opinion is issued in its place. No further 

motions for rehearing will be entertained. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A 

TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER. 

JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, ) 

a foreign corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-1295 

 ) 

MICHAEL CATINELLA and EILEEN ) 

CATINELLA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed February 11, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; J. Dale Durrance, Judge. 

Lamar D. Oxford of Dean, Ringers, 

Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellant. 

Douglas H. Stein and Stephanie 

Martinez of Seipp, Flick & Hosley, LLP, 

Miami, for Appellees. 

KELLY, Judge. 

 Michael Catinella was unloading a truck at Meadowbrook Meat Company 

when he suffered injuries from a trip and fall. Mr. Catinella and his wife filed suit, 

alleging that Meadowbrook had knowledge of and failed to warn Mr. Catinella of an 

unsafe condition at its facility, specifically a malfunctioning dock leveler. After the jury 
- 2 - 

returned a verdict in favor of Meadowbrook, the Catinellas moved for a new trial. 

Meadowbrook appeals from the order that granted the Catinellas' motion. 

 "A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to override a jury 

verdict on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence." Harlan 

Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So. 2d 336, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Additionally, this court 

has further held that an order granting a motion for new trial is subject to a heightened 

abuse of discretion standard: 

 We review a circuit court's order granting a motion for 

a new trial for abuse of discretion. Moreover, it takes a 

stronger showing of error in order to reverse an order 

granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Thus 

we begin with the presumption that the trial court properly 

exercised its discretion, and we will not disturb the trial 

court's ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion. 

Moore v. Gillett, 96 So. 3d 933, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citations omitted), review 

denied, 119 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 2013). More specifically, this court has held that "[t]he 

standard of review we must apply to an order granting a new trial is whether reasonable 

persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial judge's action. If they could, then the 

order is reasonable and not an abuse of the judge's discretion." K-Mart Corp. v. Collins, 

707 So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citation omitted). 

 In its lengthy and detailed order, the court set out the circumstances it 

believed warranted a new trial. The court found that during the course of the case 

Meadowbrook had destroyed evidence, requiring the court to give the jury an adverse 

inference instruction; had materially violated a variety of court orders; and had engaged 

in systematic material, willful discovery violations to the prejudice of the Catinellas. The 

court also found that two jurors had engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose 
- 3 - 

litigation history that was relevant and material to jury service. In concluding that a new 

trial was warranted the court explained: 

Based on the totality of circumstances outlined in this Order 

and the Court's own direct observation of the facts, parties, 

and witnesses, [the court] finds a new trial is warranted. The

Court finds the jury verdict in this case is clearly contrary to 

the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court bases this 

on the presumption instruction on spoliation and the scarcity 

of credible evidence that the leveler in question was not 

broken. Thus, no reasonable jury could have found that the 

leveler was in working order. The evidence showed the 

Plaintiff tripped over something that was sticking up at the 

end of the dock leveler. This is supported by the testimony 

of Sabrina Graham as well as the fall shown in the video. 

Defendant was on notice of the defective nature of the 

leveler and was specifically placed on notice when Quincy 

Hayward had the Plaintiff perform the two-man operation of 

the leveler. Finally, the manifest weight of the evidence 

showed Plaintiff's [injuries were] caused by Defendant's 

negligence. 

 In this appeal, Meadowbrook urges us to find that the trial court abused its 

discretion by concluding that the circumstances detailed in its order warranted a new 

trial. Although Meadowbrook argues that the trial court's observations are unsupported 

by the record, after thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal, including the transcript of 

the trial, we cannot agree that under these circumstances the trial court abused its 

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. 

 Affirmed. 

DAVIS, C.J., and SLEET, J., Concur.