METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
ABRAHAM GLASER AND EVELYN GLASER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Metropolitan Dade County appealed the denial of its directed verdict motion in a lawsuit where plaintiffs sought to establish an agency relationship between the County and OTAC (an active tortfeasor) to hold the County liable. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support an agency relationship because the County lacked the requisite control over OTAC's operations.
The appellate court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish an agency relationship because the County did not exercise the requisite degree of control over OTAC. Although agency relationships are typically questions for the trier of fact, the evidence here was too limited to create a jury question, making the County's directed verdict motion well-taken.
[1] A directed verdict motion should be granted when the evidence presented is insufficient to create a jury question on a material issue.
[2] The existence of an agency relationship depends on the degree of control exercised by the purported principal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The existence of a true agency relationship depends on the degree of control exercised by the principal.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining whether an agency relationship exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Abraham and Evelyn Glaser sued Metropolitan Dade County, seeking to establish that OTAC was the County's agent to impose liability on the C…
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 Degree Of Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final judgment and find error in the trial court’s denial of the County’s directed verdict motion. The plaintiffs, who sought to establish an agency relationship between the active tortfeasor and the County, bore the burden of proof on that issue. See Pinon v. International Harvester Co., 390 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Plaintiffs presented evidence that the County provided OTAC’s operating funds and oversaw OTAC’s expenditures.
However, that was the extent of the County’s contact with OTAC. “The existence of a true agency relationship depends on the degree of control exercised by the principal.” Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1265, n. 4 (Fla. 1987).
In this case, the County had no control or input into any of OTAC’s operations or actions, and did not control the outcome of OTAC’s activities nor the means used to achieve OTAC’s goals. Although the existence of an agency relationship is usually a question for the trier of fact, see Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1990), citing Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491, 494 (Fla. 1983); see also Ortega v. General Motors Corp., 392 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), the evidence presented was not sufficient to create a jury question.
Thus, the County’s motion was well-taken as plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the County controlled OTAC “in the way that a principal controls an agent.” Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A., 694 So. 2d 827, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see Nelson v. Shell Oil Co., 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1981).
This disposition makes it unnecessary to reach the remaining point raised on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mark N. Goldschmidt, M.D. v. Jerri Taletha Holman, 571 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1990)
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)
- Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1987)
- Rosa v. Ortega, 392 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Darcell Nelson v. Shell OIL Co., 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Pinon v. Int'l Harvester Co., 390 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Scott, 694 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)