TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING NEW TRIAL BASED ON CONCLUSION THAT VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN CONFLICTING TESTIMONY FROM A NUMBER OF WITNESSES REGARDING LIABILITY AND INJURY CAUSATION–NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATED THAT THE JURY’S VERDICT WAS A RESULT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN ITS CONSIDERATION OF DISPUTED EVIDENCE AND WHICH GREATLY UNDERMINED THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE.

Allstar Cleaning Service v. Grinwis, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2254 (Fla. 5^th DCA October 20, 2017):

This was a slip and fall failure to warn case. The trial court erroneously concluded that the verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence.

There was conflicting testimony regarding liability and injury causation from multiple witnesses in a case where plaintiff’s case was questionable.

The Fifth District held that a jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only when the evidence is clear, obvious and indisputable (citing to Jones v. Stevenson, 598 So.2d 219, 220 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1992)). A jury’s verdict is also not against the manifest weight of the evidence generally if the record shows conflicting testimony from two or more witnesses.

Where there is significant conflicting evidence the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury. The order here could not be sustained based on the juror’s questions alone as suggested by the trial court, as there was nothing in the record to indicate that the jury’s verdict was a result of anything other than the consideration of disputed evidence and the trial court’s instruction on the law.