Meadowbrook Meat Company v. Catinella , 196 So. 3d 373 ( 2015 )

IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA
February 11, 2015
MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, )
a foreign corporation, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D13-1295
)
MICHAEL CATINELLA and EILEEN )
CATINELLA, )
)
Appellees. )
________________________________ )
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. The prior opinion dated December 3,
2014, is withdrawn, and the attached corrected opinion is issued in its place. No further
motions for rehearing will be entertained.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A
TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.
JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, )
a foreign corporation, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D13-1295
)
MICHAEL CATINELLA and EILEEN )
CATINELLA, )
)
Appellees. )
________________________________ )
Opinion filed February 11, 2015.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk
County; J. Dale Durrance, Judge.
Lamar D. Oxford of Dean, Ringers,
Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellant.
Douglas H. Stein and Stephanie
Martinez of Seipp, Flick & Hosley, LLP,
Miami, for Appellees.
KELLY, Judge.
Michael Catinella was unloading a truck at Meadowbrook Meat Company
when he suffered injuries from a trip and fall. Mr. Catinella and his wife filed suit,
alleging that Meadowbrook had knowledge of and failed to warn Mr. Catinella of an
unsafe condition at its facility, specifically a malfunctioning dock leveler. After the jury
returned a verdict in favor of Meadowbrook, the Catinellas moved for a new trial.
Meadowbrook appeals from the order that granted the Catinellas' motion.
"A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to override a jury
verdict on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence." Harlan
Bakeries, Inc. v. Snow, 884 So. 2d 336, 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Additionally, this court
has further held that an order granting a motion for new trial is subject to a heightened
abuse of discretion standard:
We review a circuit court's order granting a motion for
a new trial for abuse of discretion. Moreover, it takes a
stronger showing of error in order to reverse an order
granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. Thus
we begin with the presumption that the trial court properly
exercised its discretion, and we will not disturb the trial
court's ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
Moore v. Gillett, 96 So. 3d 933, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citations omitted), review
denied, 119 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 2013). More specifically, this court has held that "[t]he
standard of review we must apply to an order granting a new trial is whether reasonable
persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial judge's action. If they could, then the
order is reasonable and not an abuse of the judge's discretion." K-Mart Corp. v. Collins,
707 So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citation omitted).
In its lengthy and detailed order, the court set out the circumstances it
believed warranted a new trial. The court found that during the course of the case
Meadowbrook had destroyed evidence, requiring the court to give the jury an adverse
inference instruction; had materially violated a variety of court orders; and had engaged
in systematic material, willful discovery violations to the prejudice of the Catinellas. The
court also found that two jurors had engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose
-2-
litigation history that was relevant and material to jury service. In concluding that a new
trial was warranted the court explained:
Based on the totality of circumstances outlined in this Order
and the Court's own direct observation of the facts, parties,
and witnesses, [the court] finds a new trial is warranted. The
Court finds the jury verdict in this case is clearly contrary to
the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court bases this
on the presumption instruction on spoliation and the scarcity
of credible evidence that the leveler in question was not
broken. Thus, no reasonable jury could have found that the
leveler was in working order. The evidence showed the
Plaintiff tripped over something that was sticking up at the
end of the dock leveler. This is supported by the testimony
of Sabrina Graham as well as the fall shown in the video.
Defendant was on notice of the defective nature of the
leveler and was specifically placed on notice when Quincy
Hayward had the Plaintiff perform the two-man operation of
the leveler. Finally, the manifest weight of the evidence
showed Plaintiff's [injuries were] caused by Defendant's
negligence.
In this appeal, Meadowbrook urges us to find that the trial court abused its
discretion by concluding that the circumstances detailed in its order warranted a new
trial. Although Meadowbrook argues that the trial court's observations are unsupported
by the record, after thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal, including the transcript of
the trial, we cannot agree that under these circumstances the trial court abused its
discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
DAVIS, C.J., and SLEET, J., Concur.
-3-