Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge

Citations

• 60 Fla. 263

Syllabus

<p>New Trial—Judge Should Grant When He is of Opinion That the Evidence Preponderates Against the Yerdict.</p> <p>1. If in the order denying a motion for new trial, the trial judge expresses the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence was manifestly against the verdict found by the jury, it then became his duty to set such verdict aside and to grant 'a new trial before another jury, and if he fails to exercise his judical discretion in this respect, he deprives the defendant of a most valuable right and is in error.</p> <p>2. Where an individual sues a Water Company for damages sustained by the destruction of his property by fire consequent upon the alleged ground that such Water Company failed to supply water for the extinguishment of such fire in compliance with its contract with the municipality, the burden of proof is at all times on the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the water company failed to supply water in the quantity called for by its contract with the city, and, (2) that but for such failure the plaintiff’s property could have been saved from destruction.</p> <p>3. Evidence examined and found to be overwhelmingly preponderative against the correctness of the verdict returned.</p>