Case Name: DORR-OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a Foreign Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Erma PARNELL, Individually, Appellee; DORR-OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a Foreign Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Erma PARNELL, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne M. Parnell, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-07-09
Citations: 334 So. 2d 629
Docket Number: Nos. 75-18 and 75-19
Parties: DORR-OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a Foreign Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Erma PARNELL, Individually, Appellee. DORR-OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a Foreign Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Erma PARNELL, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne M. Parnell, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 334
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
DORR-OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a Foreign Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Erma PARNELL, Individually, Appellee. DORR-OLIVER, INCORPORATED, a Foreign Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Erma PARNELL, as Administratrix of the Estate of Wayne M. Parnell, Deceased, Appellee.
Nos. 75-18 and 75-19.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 9, 1976.
Ronnie H. Walker, Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto & Dean, Orlando, for appellants.
Woodie A. Liles and E. C. Watkins, Jr., Tampa, and William N. Avera, Chandler, O’Neal, Avera, Gray, Lang & Stripling, Gainesville, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants appeal an order granting a motion for new trial in these consolidated cases to the appellees. Appellees cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict on the question of liability on the part of the appellants and the refusal of the trial court to give one of appellees' requested instructions on concurring negligence.
The appellants brought this appeal pursuant to the authority of § 59.04, Fla. Stat., which permits an appeal by the party aggrieved of an order granting a new trial without waiting for final judgment to be rendered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict. Under these circumstances we are prohibited from considering the cross assignments of error filed by the appellees. Osteen v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App., 1st, 1973, 283 So.2d 379.
The appellants have failed to show a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion in granting the motion for a new trial. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669.
Therefore, the order granting the motion for new trial is
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.