DIXON v. WORLD FIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC (2024)

Affirmed. See Pla v. Rierson, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1045 at *2, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2024 WL 2164116 at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 2024) (“To the extent we review the new trial order, a trial court's decision to grant or deny a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and ‘[t]rial court rulings on motions for new trial are given great deference on appeal.’ ”) (quoting Pena v. Vectour of Fla., Inc., 30 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)). See also Ferrer v. La Serna, 179 So. 3d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“A trial court's additur award is reversed only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”); Pogue v. Garib, 254 So. 3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“The trial court may not award an additur ‘where the evidence is conflicting and the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence.’ ”) (quoting Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)) (additional quotation omitted); § 768.043(2)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (establishing the criteria a trial court must consider, in an action for damages arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, in “determining whether an award is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact”).

PER CURIAM.