ONONTARIO OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
R. P. TRUCKING CO., INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This appeal addresses a trial court's erroneous grant of a directed verdict motion in a breach of contract case and improper exclusion of evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that a plaintiff establishing breach of contract is entitled to nominal damages even without proven actual damages, and that evidence should be admitted for impeachment purposes despite the best evidence rule.
The trial court improperly granted the directed verdict because once breach of contract is established, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages regardless of whether the measure of actual damages is proven. Additionally, the trial court improperly excluded the compiled exhibits because the best evidence rule does not apply when evidence is offered not to prove the truth of its contents but for other purposes such as impeachment.
[1] A directed verdict is improperly granted when a plaintiff establishes a breach of contract, as nominal damages are recoverable notwithstanding the absence of evidence reg…
[2] The best evidence rule does not apply when an exhibit is offered for impeachment purposes and not to prove the truth of the statements contained therein.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[W]e are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in not directing a verdict. Appellees/cross-appellants were entitled to nominal damages once the breach of contract had been established, notwithstanding the absence of evidence regarding the correct measure of damages.”
Establishes that nominal damages are available upon proof of breach even without proof of actual damages, making directed verdict improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOntario of Florida brought a breach of contract action against R.P. Trucking Co. At trial, the defendant's owner testified as an adverse witness. Appe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adverse Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a final judgment attacks two orders of the trial court. One granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of appellant’s case-in-chief and the other sustained an objection to exhibits offered into evidence by appellant. We disagree with both determinations and reverse.
Appellant brought this action allegedly for breach of contract. From what we can glean from the arguments in support of and in opposition to the motion for directed verdict and the trial court’s comments thereon, the motion was granted because appellant failed to prove any damages. However, this court held in Muroff v. Dill, 386 So. 2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), pet. for rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1981):
[W]e are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in not directing a verdict. Appellees/cross-appellants were entitled to nominal damages once the breach of contract had been established, notwithstanding the absence of evidence regarding the correct measure of damages.
Accord Price v. Southern Home Ins. Co. of the Carolinas, 100 Fla. 338, 129 So. 748, 751 (1930); Beverage Canners, Inc. v. Cott Corp., 372 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Consequently, the trial court improperly granted the motion.
The second point raised by appellant concerning the exclusion of evidence by the trial court will undoubtedly arise at the new trial and therefore we shall consider the propriety of the trial court’s ruling. Appellant offered into evidence exhibits which constituted a compilation typed by appellee’s secretary from a daily log. Ap-pellee objected on the ground that the original book and daily log were the best evidence. The trial court agreed with appellee that the best evidence rule applied and therefore only permitted the original into evidence. At the time of the offer appel-lee’s owner was testifying, having been called as an adverse witness by appellant. Appellant’s purpose for offering the two compilations instead of the original log was to show inconsistencies among them, thereby bearing on the credibility of the witness and the record keeping of his company. For impeachment purposes the exhibits should have been admitted. The best evidence rule is not applicable where the matter being offered is not used to prove the truth of statements contained therein. See Urga v. State, 104 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. EBY Constr., 662 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…regard, even if Destiny is not able to prove that it sustained actual damages as a result of the breach, Destiny would be entitled to recover nominal damages upon a showing of breach of contract. See Onontario of Florida, Inc. v. R.P. Trucking Co., 399 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accord Indian River Colony Club v. Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc., 619 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Muroff v. Dill, 386 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1981). By striking the pleading…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 83 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…not to award damages to the non-breaching party. MSM Golf, L.L.C. v. Newgent, 853 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr., 662 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Onontario of Fla., Inc. v. R.P. Trucking Co., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Muroff v. Dill, 386 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review, denied, 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1981). Application of this new rule in this manner certainly shows to me that this prejudice and damage correlation analysis is untenable,…
-
MSM Golf, L.L.C. v. Newgent, 853 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…So. 2d 243 (Fla.1983); Fisher v. Miami, 172 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1965). At the very least, MSM was entitled to nominal damages once the jury found that the contracts had been breached by Newgent. See Onontario of Florida, Inc. v. R.P. Trucking Co., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Muroff v. Dill, 386 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1981). As the verdict was patently inconsistent, either party was, as the trial court correctly observed, entitled to a new trial. The quest…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Price v. The S. Home Ins. Co. of the Carolinas, 100 Fla. 338 (Fla. 1930)
- Muroff v. Dill, 386 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Proffitt v. Proffitt, 372 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Diamante Urga v. State, 104 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Epps v. Great S. Truck Co., 104 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)