Each ground will be addressed separately. A trial court's grant of a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). First, as to the court's finding of fundamental error, in Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), our court explained the concept of fundamental error as it applies to civil lawsuits.
Each ground will be addressed separately. A trial court's grant of a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). First, as to the court's finding of fundamental error, in Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), our court explained the concept of fundamental error as it applies to civil lawsuits.
See Cowen v. Thornton, 621 So.2d 684, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1994); see also Simpson. But see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (distinguishing between internal inconsistencies in verdict and inconsistency with proof). The second problem arising from the use of special interrogatories to itemize damages is the standard under which the court should review a jury verdict where there are alleged inconsistencies in the jury's findings on damages.
Moreover, we note that defendant Stone, as well as the trial court, could have sought to minimize the risk of another trial by raising this issue prior to the discharge of the jury. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daugherty, 638 So.2d 612, 613 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Cowen, 621 So.2d at 688 (Altenbernd, J., concurring); Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church, 476 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We accordingly reject Stone's claim that the Simpsons waived their right to contest the adequacy of the verdict posttrial.