KMART CORPORATION v. HERZOG

PER CURIAM.

We cannot say that the order granting a new trial—on the grounds that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence is outside the broad discretion given to trial judges in such matters. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959); Castlewood International Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1975); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1980), Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 1981); Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla. 1988); Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In affirming the new trial order, however, we do not do so because we agree that a new trial was required as a matter of law.

STONE, C.J., GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.