RAYMOND J. SMITH, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
EMERY AIR FREIGHT CORP., D/B/A EMERY WORLD WIDE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Smith, an employee of a contractor, sued Emery Air Freight for intentional interference with his employment contract after Emery demanded his removal from its premises following an altercation with an Emery employee. The court reversed the denial of Emery's directed verdict on liability, holding that Emery's action was justified as a legitimate exercise of its right to control access to its private property based on founded safety concerns.
Emery's motion for directed verdict on liability should have been granted because Emery's action was justified. A business has the right to bar a person from its premises when such action is based on a founded safety concern, and Emery's motive was to prevent future altercations in the workplace—a legitimate justification that defeats a claim for intentional interference with a business relationship.
[1] A business has the right to bar a person from its premises when such action is based on a founded safety concern.
[2] To establish a claim for intentional interference with a business relationship, a plaintiff must show both an intent to damage the relationship and a lack of justificatio…
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“A claimed intentional interference with a business relationship requires a showing of both an intent to damage the business relationship and a lack of justification to take the action which caused the damage.”
Establishes the two-part test for tortious interference with business relations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was employed by C & J under a terminable-at-will contract and worked on Emery's premises pursuant to C & J's service contract with Emery. After …
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 Justification For Interference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Smith was an employee of C & J under a terminable-at-will contract. C & J’s contract with Emery Air Freight to provide loading services to Emery required Smith to work on Emery’s premises. After Smith was involved in an altercation with Mike Sherman, an Emery employee, Emery demanded that C & J remove Smith from its premises. C & J terminated Smith because it had no work for him except at Emery.
Smith brought an action against Emery for intentional interference with a business relationship. The court granted Emery’s motion for a directed verdict on Smith’s claim for punitive damages but denied Emery’s motion for directed verdict on liability. A jury awarded Smith $35,000 in damages.
Smith appeals the directed verdict on punitive damages, and Emery cross-appeals the denial of its motion for a directed verdict on liability. We reverse the denial of Emery’s motion for a directed verdict.
A claimed intentional interference with a business relationship requires a showing of both an intent to damage the business relationship and a lack of justification to take the action which caused the damage. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
It cannot be said that Emery acted solely with a desire to interfere with Smith’s employment. Several factors can be considered in determining whether Emery's action was justified. These include the nature of Emery’s conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979). The nature of Emery’s conduct was the prohibition of entry onto its private property by a specific person. Its motive and intent was to prevent future altercations in the workplace. A business has the right to bar a person from its premises when such action is based on a founded safety concern. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fleitas, 488 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (FPL had privilege to bar plaintiff from premises of nuclear power plant based on founded suspicion of illegal drug use). Emery’s action was justified under the circumstances and its motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.
We need not reach the issue presented by Smith’s appeal.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for cross-appellant Emery.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seminole Tribe OF Florida v. Times Publ'g Co., Inc., 780 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…or and the contractual interests of the other, (f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor’s conduct to the interference and (g) the relations between the parties. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979); see Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So. 2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380, 383 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We focus first on the “nature” of the reporters’ conduct. The reporters’ actions were not designed to terminate the ongoing relationship between the Tribe and…
-
Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). A cause of action for tortious interference requires a showing of both an intent to damage the business relationship and a lack of justification to take the action which caused the damage. Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see Ellis Rubin, P.A. v. Alarcon, 892 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Protecting a company’s own economic interest to reduce the risk of incurring further loss does not constitute intent to damage within the meaning of a cause of…
-
Sec. Title Guar. Corp. of Baltimore v. McDILL Columbus Corp., 543 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…damage the business relationship the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted without justification. This requires an examination of the defendant’s “conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance.” Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So. 2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Security simply refused to execute a release for which it in return was to receive no consideration. Given the fact that it held a partial assignment of the judgment against McDill for $291,000, Security’s conduct was justif…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- F.T. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Lester v. Lester, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Major v. Major, 488 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)