FRED H. HALLBAUER, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS W. HAWLEY, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict finding the defendant liable for negligent repair of a vessel, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of liability and ratification of the contract.
Yes, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of liability and its resolution of the ratification issue.
“an issue of fact did exist and that the court did not err in finding there was sufficient evidence that the defendant used his position to interfere with plaintiff's freedom of contract; whereby, the defendant became liable to the plaintiff for the negligent repair of the vessel.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the jury's finding of liability.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant for negligent repair of a vessel. A jury found the defendant liable. The defendant appealed, arguing there was no sub…
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 Negligent Repair cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict. The sole question presented by appellant is whether there was any substantial evidence upon which the finding of liability could have been based.
It is agreed if an issue existed, the jury was properly instructed upon the law. A careful examination of the record convinces us that an issue of fact did exist and that the court did not err in finding there was sufficient evidence that the defendant used his position to interfere with plaintiff’s freedom of contract; whereby, the defendant became liable to the plaintiff for the negligent repair of the vessel. In thus holding, we are mindful of defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s subsequent actions were sufficient to amount to a ratification of the contract. However, we find that this issue was also resolved by the jury upon conflicting evidence. See Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826, 188 So. 815, 820.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CELAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…A 1977). . Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 230 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1969). . 10 FIa.Jur.2d Conspiracy-Civil Aspects § 1 (1979). . Id.; Prosser, supra note 4, at § 119; see Bencomo v. Morgan, 210 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Leach v. Feinberg, 101 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 104 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1958). . Cf. Johnson v. City of Pompano Beach, 406 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). . The comment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 states "the requirement that it [the affidavit] show affirm…
Authorities Cited
- Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1939)