Case Name: UNIROYAL TIRE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and General Motors Corporation, a foreign corporation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Vivian TRUJILLO, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-04-12
Citations: 757 So. 2d 547
Docket Number: No. 3D96-1411
Parties: UNIROYAL TIRE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and General Motors Corporation, a foreign corporation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Vivian TRUJILLO, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, COPE and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 757
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
UNIROYAL TIRE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and General Motors Corporation, a foreign corporation, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Vivian TRUJILLO, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 3D96-1411.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 12, 2000.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 2000.
Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler and Wendy F. Lumish and Jeffrey A. Cohen, Miami, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Stabinski & Funt, Miami; and Bambi G. Blum, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal recurs upon a mandate issued by the Supreme Court of Florida on March 16, 2000. We vacate our previous opinion rendered on May 13, 1998, and recorded at 711 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and conform in all respects to the opinion of the Supreme Court recorded at 753 So.2d 1256 (Fla.2000).
As directed by that opinion and mandate, we now apply the principles announced in Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999), to the central contention raised by the defendants in this appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting an additur and/or new trial based upon its findings that the verdict was inconsistent and fundamentally improper. Accordingly, we affirm the order under review and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial.
We adhere to our earlier determination that the plaintiffs cross-appeal is without merit.
Affirmed.