This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: to the trial
court, Mrs. Russell was discharged for a legitimate non-retaliatory reason, and there was
not sufficient evidence to show that the reason was a pretext for retaliation. On the loss of
consortium claim, the trial court ruled that because the loss of consortium claim was a
derivative claim based upon the negligent retention claim, and because the jury found in
Doral's favor on that claim, the derivative action must fail. The trial court alternatively
found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Doral was negligent in its
retention of Elman Holder such that the trial court would have directed a verdict on
negligent retention even if the jury had found for Mrs. Russell on that claim. Based upon
that, according to the trial court, the loss of consortium claim would likewise fail.
*377 As stated above, the trial court explained that it would grant Doral's alternative
motion for new trial if it was determined on review that judgment notwithstanding the
verdict should not have been entered. In its Final Judgment, the trial court, based upon its
discussion of the evidence in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict, found that
the manifest weight of the evidence was contrary to the jury's verdict on each of the
claims as to which the jury found in favor of the Russells. Finally, on the alternative
motion for remittitur, if the judgment notwithstanding the verdict should not have been
entered, the trial court stated that it would order a remittitur to the amount of $75,000.
The trial court also entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion to tax fees and costs as
moot. This appeal follows.
 When reviewing an order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we
view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolve all conflicts
in the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, and construe every reasonable
conclusion which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the non-moving party. See
Stokes v. Ruttger, 610 So.2d 711, 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (quoting Collins v. School
Bd. of Broward County, 471 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)); see also Irven v. Dep...
View Full Document
- Spring '08