SILVER SPRINGS BOTTLED WATER COMPANY vs TONIE BROADWAY AND JANALUISA BROADWAY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED SILVER SPRINGS BOTTLED WATER COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Case No. 5D20-1249 LT Case No. 2016-CA-1680 TONIE BROADWAY AND JANALUISA BROADWAY, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 15, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Edward L. Scott, Judge. Jessica C. Conner, of Walker, Revels, Greninger & Netcher, PLLC, Orlando, and S. Renee Stephens Lundy, of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. M. Shannon McLin, of Florida Appeals, Orlando, and Peter G. Walsh, of David W. Singer & Assoc., Hollywood, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. PER CURIAM. Silver Springs Bottled Water Company (“Silver Springs”) appeals the trial court’s order granting Tonie and Janaluisa Broadway’s (the “Broadways”) motion for new trial. In its order, the trial court identified several separate and independent grounds for a new trial—including the improper admission of evidence that Mr. Broadway had diabetes and a prior knee surgery.1 We agree with Silver Springs that the evidence concerning diabetes was properly admitted because the Broadways invited the issue on direct examination. See Segarra v. Mellerson, 675 So. 2d 980, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). However, based on our record and the arguments raised on appeal, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered a new trial based on admission of the prior knee surgery issue. See Brown v. Est. of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 497–98 (Fla. 1999) (“When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion.”); Castlewood Int’l Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So. 2d 520, 522 (Fla. 1975) (“A heavy 1 The Broadways cross-appeal the denial of their motion for new trial as to one ground. Given our disposition, we need not reach this issue. 2 burden rests on appellants who seek to overturn such a ruling, and any abuse of discretion must be patent from the record.” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm and remand for further proceedings. AFFIRMED. EISNAUGLE, HARRIS and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
