Case Name: KMART CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Marcia HERZOG and Max Herzog, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-16
Citations: 696 So. 2d 955
Docket Number: No. 96-0800
Parties: KMART CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Marcia HERZOG and Max Herzog, Appellees.
Judges: STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 696
Pages: 955–956

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.