Jones v. Jacksonville Electric Co.

Citations

• 56 Fla. 452

Syllabus

<p>I. On a writ of error to an order granting a new trial in an action at law under the statute the only questions to be considered are those involved in the order granting the new trial.</p> <p>2. Á motion for new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of trial courts, and where a trial court grants such a motion, the action in doing so is presumed to be in accordance with the justice and merits of the case, unless the contrary appears 6y the record. An order of the trial court granting a new trial should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless it appears affirmatively' from the record that there has been an abuse of a sound judicial discretion, or that some settled principle of law has been violated.</p> <p>3. The statute provides that a railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons by the running of cars or other machinery unless the company shall make it appear that its agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company, but this provision does not create such a presumption as will outweigh proofs, or that will require any greater or stronger or more convincing proofs than in any other issue. The statute casts upon the company the burden of affirmatively showing that its agents exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence to prevent the injury complained of.</p> <p>4. When the trial court grants a motion for new trial and one of the grounds of the motion is that the verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence, and it does not appear upon what ground the motion was grapted, and there is conflicting testimony upon a material issue in the cause, the appellate court will not reverse the order where there is no palpable preponderance of evidence in favor of the verdict.</p>