Case Name: B. W. BUTLER, INC., a Florida corporation, and T-Y Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Byran ANDERMAN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Ernest Anderman; Ernest Anderman, Individually, et al., Appellees; CIVIL AIR PATROL and Joel Katz, Appellants, v. Byran ANDERMAN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Ernest Anderman; Ernest Anderman, Individually, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-06-29
Citations: 279 So. 2d 907
Docket Number: Nos. 72-247, 72-259
Parties: B. W. BUTLER, INC., a Florida corporation, and T-Y Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Byran ANDERMAN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Ernest Anderman; Ernest Anderman, Individually, et al., Appellees. CIVIL AIR PATROL and Joel Katz, Appellants, v. Byran ANDERMAN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Ernest Anderman; Ernest Anderman, Individually, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Sheldon J. Schlesinger, Simons & Schlesinger, Hollywood, for appellee, An-derman.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 279
Pages: 907–908

Head Matter:
B. W. BUTLER, INC., a Florida corporation, and T-Y Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Byran ANDERMAN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Ernest Anderman; Ernest Anderman, Individually, et al., Appellees. CIVIL AIR PATROL and Joel Katz, Appellants, v. Byran ANDERMAN, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Ernest Anderman; Ernest Anderman, Individually, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 72-247, 72-259.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 29, 1973.
Steven R. Berger, Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Miami, for appellants-ap-pellees; B. W. Butler, Inc., and T-Y Corp.
James A. Smith, Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellants-appellees, Civil Air Patrol and Joel Katz.
Sheldon J. Schlesinger, Simons & Schlesinger, Hollywood, for appellee, An-derman.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In an action for personal injuries the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants, upon which judgment was entered. The plaintiffs' timely motion for a new trial was granted, the court finding that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is this order which the defendants have appealed.
Recognizing, as we do, that the trial court exercises a broad discretion in the granting of a motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that such ruling should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse, Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, we have reviewed the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. Russo v. Clark, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 1. We conclude that it is. The verdict not only is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, but is in fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and the judgment thereon.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
MAGER, J., dissents with opinion.