William P. Allen

The case involved The Mastan Company suing American Custom Homes to collect on delinquent accounts that had been assigned to Mastan by a third party. At trial without a jury, Mastan attempted to introduce business records through the testimony of one of three employee bookkeepers, but the defendant objected on the grounds that the witness was neither the records custodian nor a qualified witness under Florida Statute 92.36. The trial court sustained the objection and entered judgment for the defendant. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed, holding that the witness did not qualify because she lacked supervisory authority over the records and an office manager or head bookkeeper would have been needed to properly authenticate them under the statute.

procedure

In this case, the Illingworths obtained a money judgment against the Ferrentinos after a car accident involving Eddie Ferrentino, but the Ferrentinos' insurer, American Mutual, refused to defend the suit or pay the judgment based on an exclusionary policy endorsement that barred coverage when Eddie Ferrentino drove. The trial court entered judgments against the insurer in garnishment proceedings and on a cross-claim for attorney's fees, ruling that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage because it failed to respond to an SR-21 form filed with the state and that the exclusion was void under Fla. Stat. § 627.01091 because the insurer had not filed the endorsement form for approval with the insurance commissioner. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the record supported the estoppel finding and that the statute required prior approval of the endorsement form, making the unapproved exclusion ineffective regardless of its specific wording. The court therefore upheld the garnishment and fee awards in favor of the appellees.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who purchased a new refrigerator in February 1962 from defendant J.W. Whitesides, manufactured by General Motors, and was injured in December 1966 when a latent defect caused the door hinge to fail. She filed suit in April 1967 asserting breach of implied warranty (among other counts later dismissed), but the trial court dismissed the claim as barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the limitations period began to run at the time of the product's purchase and sale rather than when the injury occurred, drawing on precedents from contract and personal injury cases holding that the cause of action accrues upon breach.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Elana and Victor Lescard against William Lee Keel for injuries from an automobile collision that occurred in Georgia in 1963. The plaintiffs filed the suit in Florida in 1965, more than two years after the accident, after several prior actions were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the action was barred by Georgia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida's borrowing statute requires application of the Georgia limitations period to causes of action arising there, consistent with Florida's adherence to the lex loci delicti doctrine for tort claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a negligence lawsuit brought by Marie Elena Reynolds and her husband against the promoters of a wrestling match after she was struck in the face by a whiskey bottle thrown by another spectator. The lower court dismissed the complaint, first giving the plaintiffs 20 days to file an amended complaint and then entering a final dismissal when they failed to do so. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the dismissal, holding that the original complaint failed to state a cause of action because it alleged only general negligence without specifying any particular acts or omissions by the defendants. The court reasoned that promoters of such events owe only a duty of reasonable care to their invitees and are not insurers of safety, citing supporting authority from other states that the duty does not require searching patrons or providing enough employees to prevent all possible injuries from third parties.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Winkfield v. State, the appellant was convicted of robbery after a jury trial and appealed the trial court's admission of testimony about a similar robbery committed about a month later, which the prosecution introduced to show identity and modus operandi. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was properly admitted under the Williams rule because it was relevant and had probative value in proving material facts in the charged offense. The court reasoned that the similarities in the crimes—such as two perpetrators approaching a delivery truck, one with a gun, and taking wallets from the victim's pockets—established a common scheme and the defendant's involvement, without the evidence being offered solely to demonstrate bad character or propensity. The opinion emphasized that relevancy, not the mere fact of another crime, is the test for admissibility of such evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved foster parents who had cared for a child since birth seeking to adopt him after he had been permanently committed to the State Department of Public Welfare for adoption. The Department appealed a trial court decree granting the adoption, contending that a placement agreement signed by the foster parents (which barred adoption actions) and the Department's refusal to consent should preclude the adoption. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that neither the agreement nor lack of agency consent ousts the court's jurisdiction or bars adoption, and that the trial court properly treated the child's best interests as the controlling factor after weighing all evidence.

family law

The case involved an eminent domain action by Hillsborough County to acquire property, including a parcel with a coin-operated laundry business operated by sublessees Rufus and Hazel Douglass, for a state highway right-of-way. The county took the entire property in 1966, ending the business after more than five years of operation, and the Douglasses sought special damages for business loss under Florida Statute § 73.071(3)(b). The trial court denied the claim, ruling the statute inapplicable, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed. The core reasoning was that the statute provides compensation only for damage to a business located on adjoining lands not taken, not when the business itself is on the fully condemned property, consistent with prior precedents interpreting the provision.

property

The case involved Charles Cochran, an automobile mechanic injured when a new bearing manufactured by Ford Motor Company shattered during a generator repair, resulting in the loss of his eye. Cochran sued Ford asserting a manufacturing defect that rendered the bearing unfit for its intended use, constituting a breach of warranty. The trial court entered a $45,000 judgment for Cochran after a jury verdict, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the plaintiff could not be required to identify the precise defect since it was impossible after the incident, expert testimony based on tests of similar bearings was admissible, and the defendant could not depose the plaintiff's experts regarding their opinions as this constituted protected work product.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Law v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of breaking and entering and petit larceny based on evidence including items taken from a burglarized garage that were found on him after his arrest. He appealed, contending that the arrest lacked probable cause and that the seized evidence should have been suppressed. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest without a warrant because the defendant matched the description of a fleeing suspect seen at the scene in the early morning hours, justifying the search incident to arrest. The court further reasoned that even if probable cause were lacking, the defendant had waived the issue by failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence as required under precedent. The concurring opinion agreed solely on the procedural ground without addressing probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death suit brought by the mother of a TV installer who was fatally electrocuted when the antenna he was holding contacted overhead power lines while working on the defendants Bertrans' property. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action against both the electric utility and the homeowners. On appeal, the court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged negligence by Tampa Electric Company in the placement and insulation of its wires near the residence, creating a foreseeable risk of contact during antenna installation, and therefore reversed the dismissal as to the utility. However, relying on prior precedent, the court affirmed dismissal as to the Bertrans, finding no viable claim against the property owners.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved homeowners suing Nitram Chemicals for operating its ammonium nitrate plant in a way that created noises, dust, and fumes interfering with their property use. The trial court entered judgments based on jury verdicts finding the plant constituted a temporary nuisance and awarding damages to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the court affirmed the nuisance findings and most damage awards, holding that the evidence supported the verdicts and the jury instructions adequately stated the law on nuisances, but reversed the awards to two sets of plaintiffs for retrial on damages due to lack of proper evidence or instructions on measuring damages for a temporary nuisance.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involves property owners near Tampa International Airport who brought an inverse condemnation action against the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, alleging that frequent low-altitude jet overflights after 1960 substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their land and constituted a taking of an avigational easement. The trial court ordered the Authority to initiate formal condemnation proceedings under Chapters 73 and 74 to acquire the easement above 250 feet. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the introduction of jet flights marked the point of substantial interference, that no prescriptive flight rights had been acquired beforehand, and that the owners' suit was timely filed within the limitations period. The decision rested on findings that the Authority controlled runway use and that the volume and nature of jet operations after May 1960 impaired the properties in a manner requiring compensation.

property

In Duncan v. Pullum, plaintiffs sued defendant under an indemnity agreement related to the sale of corporate stock, seeking recovery for unlisted corporate liabilities totaling over $12,000; defendant, a Polk County resident, moved to dismiss for improper venue in Lake County and later asserted a counterclaim alleging fraud in the agreement's formation. The trial court denied the venue motion and later struck the counterclaim with prejudice along with portions of the answer and affirmative defenses. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that the order dismissing the counterclaim was final and appealable as a separate cause of action but affirmed its dismissal, reasoning that the counterclaim failed to allege actionable damages because attorneys' fees are not recoverable absent a statute or contract and any potential liability under the indemnity agreement remained contingent. The court declined to review the earlier non-final orders on venue and the striking of defenses, as they were not properly before it on interlocutory appeal in a law action and could be addressed after final judgment on the complaint.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a savings account opened by Mrs. Catherine E. Sharp in her name as trustee for beneficiary Viola Jones, which the First National Bank of Tampa, as guardian for the now-incompetent Mrs. Sharp, had withdrawn. Mrs. Jones counterclaimed to require return of the funds to the account. The court held that the account was a Totten trust and that the guardian lacked authority to withdraw the money. The reasoning relied on the Totten doctrine that such an account creates only a tentative, revocable trust during the depositor's lifetime, with revocation permitted on behalf of an incompetent only when necessary for the ward's support, which was not required here since other funds sufficed; the money was ordered returned to the association to remain until Mrs. Sharp's death.

property

The plaintiff sued five members of the Belleair Beach City Council and the mayor for damages, claiming they negligently enacted a zoning ordinance without required public notice and hearings; the ordinance banned living in vehicles like her Mercedes-Benz microbus outside licensed mobile home parks. The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the dismissal of her complaint. The court held that municipal officials enjoy immunity from tort suits when performing legislative or quasi-legislative functions, such as promulgating zoning ordinances. This conclusion followed from precedents exempting municipalities and their officers from liability for acts in legislative, judicial, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial capacities.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Ellen Bauer, who was appointed city clerk for Gulfport, Florida, in 1961 and was removed from the position by a 3-2 vote of the city council in 1965. She sued the city and three council members for wrongful discharge, seeking damages for injury to her reputation, mental anguish, loss of income, and breach of contract. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the defendants immune from suit, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the city's special charter granted the council unrestricted power to appoint and remove the clerk, superseding a general statute requiring cause for removal; municipal employees serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority; and public officials enjoy immunity from tort claims, such as defamation or injurious falsehood, arising from actions taken within the scope of their duties.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned James A. Johnson, a public school employee subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury and questioned by the state attorney about the alleged embezzlement of school supplies and materials delivered to a private camp owned by co-defendant J. Crockett Farnell, a county superintendent. Johnson sought a writ of prohibition to bar his trial on embezzlement charges under Florida Statute 812.10, claiming immunity from prosecution because of his immunized testimony. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, granted the writ and ordered Johnson discharged from prosecution. The court reasoned that Johnson's testimony supplied links in the chain of evidence regarding the joint scheme, triggering the broad protections of the state's immunity statute, which must be construed to match constitutional self-incrimination safeguards. The bill of particulars further confirmed that the charged conduct overlapped with the immunized testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Wilton G. Hogge suing United States Rubber Company and Billups entities after a tire he purchased exploded while being inflated, causing him severe injuries. He claimed negligence and breaches of warranties, but the defendants asserted assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that Hogge heard or should have known of the danger from attendants' warnings about the improperly seated bead, supporting the jury instruction on assumption of risk.

torts & liability

The case involved buyers who sought to rescind their 1960 contract to purchase a lot and home in a Florida subdivision from the seller, General Development Corporation, alleging that the seller's agents had misrepresented that an adjacent creek would be developed into a navigable waterway connecting to nearby rivers. The buyers took possession in 1959, closed the sale in 1960, and filed suit in 1963 after the creek remained a short, landlocked body of water. The trial court denied rescission, finding insufficient evidence of fraud, that contract terms precluded reliance on oral statements, and that the buyers had ratified the contract by accepting a new heating system. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the decree, adopting the chancellor's analysis that the buyers had waived any right to rescind and failed to meet the burden of proving fraud. The court emphasized that rescission is a harsh remedy not favored when the claimants have accepted benefits under the contract with knowledge of the facts.

propertytorts & liability