BOBBY BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY, DARLENE BROWN, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF BOBBY BROWN AND DARLENE BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN SNELLGROVE, 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.
Bobby Brown sued Norman Snellgrove for injuries sustained while working on a strawberry farm, claiming Snellgrove and the farm operator were joint venturers and thus jointly liable. The trial court granted Snellgrove's motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the evidence conclusively established the absence of two essential elements of a joint venture: joint control and a duty to share in losses.
The court affirmed the summary judgment because Snellgrove conclusively established the absence of two critical elements necessary to establish a joint venture under Florida law: joint control or right of control and a duty to share in losses. Since Snellgrove carried his initial burden as the moving party, the burden shifted to the appellants to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding these elements, which they failed to do.
[1] A joint venture requires, among other elements, joint control or the right of control and a duty to share in losses.
[2] A written lease agreement explicitly stating that no partnership is created and that neither party is responsible for the other's debts or liabilities can negate the exis…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So.2d 510 (Fla.1957), the supreme court set forth five elements necessary to establish a joint venture. Two of those elements, joint control or right of control and a duty to share in losses, have been conclusively shown to be nonexistent in this case.”
Establishes the legal standard for joint venture liability and identifies the two critical elements that were absent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBobby Brown was injured when thrown from a pickup truck while working on a strawberry farm operated by Rodney Johnson. Johnson leased the twenty-acre …
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 Joint Venture Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellants filed a complaint in the trial court to recover for injuries appellant Bobby Brown sustained when he was thrown from a pickup truck while working on a strawberry farm for one Rodney Johnson. Appellants alleged that Brown was injured as a result of Johnson’s negligence and that Johnson and appellee were joint ven-turers in the farming operation and, therefore, jointly liable for Johnson’s negligence and Brown’s resulting injuries. Appellee answered and served affirmative defenses and a motion for summary judgment. In support of his motion for summary judgment, appellee filed his affidavit and deposition and a deposition of Johnson.
The affidavit and depositions established that Johnson leased the twenty-acre farm from appellee under the terms of a written lease. Johnson had obtained financing for the farm operation from Farmers Home Administration. Appellee was in no way obligated for the funds obtained from Farmers Home Administration. The “Cash Farm Lease” Johnson and appellee executed was on a form furnished by Farmers Home Administration. The agreement provided for Johnson to pay rental to appellee in the amount of one-third of net profits from the farming operation.
The agreement further specified that no partnership between the parties was created and that neither was responsible for the debts, liability, accidents or damages caused by the other party. The depositions of both Johnson and appellee establish that appellee was not obligated for any losses that Johnson might incur in the farming operation. The lease agreement provides that Johnson was responsible for all expenses except for appellee’s maintenance of fences, payment of his real property taxes and insurance on the existing buildings. The depositions further establish that appellee had no right to control Johnson’s farming operation.
While appellants submitted opposing affidavits, they in no way refute appellee’s supporting affidavit and depositions on the issue of appellee’s right of control or his obligation for any losses incurred in the farming operation by Johnson. The strawberries from the farm were marketed in flats with the name “RODNEY JOHNSON FARM” imprinted on the sides of each flat.
In Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1957), the supreme court set forth five elements necessary to establish a joint venture. Two of those elements, joint control or right of control and a duty to share in losses, have been conclusively shown to be nonexistent in this case. Appellee has thus carried his initial burden as the moving party for summary judgment. The burden then shifted to appellants to demonstrate the existence of an issue of law or fact in regard to those critical elements. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). Appellants have not met their resulting burden. We, therefore, affirm the summary judgment for appellee.
HALL, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. The Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 657 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…f even one of the five elements has precluded a finding of joint venture. See, e.g., Kislak, 95 So. 2d at 517; Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. McKinney, 410 So. 2d 542, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1982); Brown, v. Snell-grove, 503 So. 2d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 998 (Fla.1987); Pollard v. Browder, 126 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). Application of the first joint venture element to the instant case reveals that the City and the School Board shared a general…
-
Montrose v. Premier Am. Resorts, 664 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…y judgment. We affirm, as the record conclusively establishes that the plaintiffs sued the wrong defendant. Premier American Resorts had no control over the operations or management of the resort where the incident occurred. See Brown v. Snellgrove, 503 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1987). AFFIRMED.…
-
Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 844 (M.D. Fla. 2007)…eir interests were adverse and not joint ...; but of course they both wanted oil and gas but there is none and even if oil were produced their interest would be separate and not joint. 29 So.2d at 734. Likewise, in Brown v. Snellgrove, 503 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), a lessor under a cash farm lease was not a joint venturer with lessee where lease provided that lessor was to receive one-third of the net profits from the farming operation; the lessee was responsible for all expenses except mai…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Kislak v. Koren Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1957)