ROY T. KARTAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
INTEROCEAN, S.A., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
In a joint venture dispute over foreign steel sales, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's accounting decision, rejecting the appellant's challenges to the allocation of losses and expenses incurred after the venture's termination.
The court affirmed the lower court's accounting decision on all three points: losses on steel ordered before termination are properly shared equally; one joint venture member is not liable to the other for mere negligence in failing to secure insurance; and the allocation of bank charges and credit insurance premiums was properly applied.
“one member of a joint venture is not liable to the other for mere negligence”
Establishes that Interocean's employee oversight in failing to secure insurance does not create liability to Kartage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKartage and Interocean were engaged in a joint venture to sell foreign steel in the United States. After the venture terminated, disputes arose regard…
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.
This appeal brings on for review a final decree rendered in an accounting suit. The parties had been engaged in a joint venture in the sale of foreign steel in this country. The appellant urges three points upon which he contends the chancellor erred in rendering the account. First, in charging him with one-half of the losses incurred in the sale of steel subsequent to the termination of the relationship. Second, in charging him with one-half of the loss on a certain shipment of steel which was supposed to have been covered by “all risk insurance” secured by the appellee, when in fact it was not, through an oversight on the part of employees of the appellee. Third, that it was contrary to the terms of their agreement for the appellant to be charged one-half of certain bank expenses, credit insurance premiums and credits.
We have examined the record in light of the contentions made by the appellant, and find no error as to the sharing of one-half of the losses because the loss was one sustained on steel ordered prior to the termination of the joint venture. As to the division of the loss which was not covered by “all risk insurance”, it appears that the chancellor correctly applied the principle of law that one member of a joint venture is not liable to the other for mere negligence. See: 24 Fla.Jur., Partnerships, § 152; 48 C.J.S. Joint Adventures § 11, page 844. However, it appears that the appel-lee is attempting to recover the loss occasioned from the ship owners, wherein it *77is alleged that the damage occurred and, of course, if it is successful it will hold any proceeds recovered in said litigation for the benefit of the appellant as well as itself. The appellant has also failed to demonstrate any error in the application of bank charges, credit insurance premiums and credits.
Therefore, the final decree here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohen v. Lansburgh, 366 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…rned or received in accordance with his pro rata interest, as reflected in the original agreement, and likewise being responsible to the joint venture or partnership in accordance with the original terms and conditions. Kartage v. Interocean, S. A., 167 So. 2d 76 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Biers v. Sammons, 242 So. 2d 158 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Section 620.67, Florida Statutes (1975); 24 Fla.Jur., Partnership, § 152. The appellant has also contended that the amount of attorney’s fees is unreasonable, which we find to b…
-
Cohen v. Fonseca, 677 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…tered judgment for appellee-Greenvale Investments in that amount. Appellant claims that the findings of the trial court are inconsistent, as a joint venturer cannot be liable to the joint venture for ordinary negligence. Kartage v. Interocean, SA., 167 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). While this is true in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, it appears that the trial court determined that the subcontract was an independent agreement which expressly provided for additional compensation to appellant and…