ALEX K. EASTON, DOING BUSINESS AS GEORGE EASTON FURNITURE CO., APPELLANT,
v.
MURIEL A. WEIR, APPELLEE; ALEX K. EASTON, DOING BUSINESS AS GEORGE EASTON FURNITURE CO., APPELLANT, V. FEDERAL ROOFING AND SIDING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND DEWEY HOWARD, SR., 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.
Plaintiff Easton sued defendants for negligent roof repairs that damaged his stored furniture and caused business interruption. The court affirmed summary judgments dismissing both actions as barred by the three-year statute of limitations, holding that direct damages to goods and consequential business interruption damages arise from a single cause of action.
The court held that the cause of action is barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Direct damages to goods and consequential business interruption damages are merely separate elements of damage arising from a single wrongful act—the negligent roof repairs—not separate causes of action subject to different limitation periods.
“a single wrongful act gives rise to a single cause of action, and that the various injuries resulting from it are merely items of damage arising from the same wrong”
Establishes the governing legal principle that multiple damages from one negligent act do not create separate causes of action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Weir rented a warehouse to plaintiff Easton for furniture storage. On June 14, 1958, Weir contracted with Federal Roofing to repair the ware…
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 Statute Of Limitations Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Summary final judgments were granted' the defendants Muriel A. Weir and Federal' Roofing and Siding, Inc. and Dewey Howard, Sr. in two separate actions brought by the plaintiff Alex K. Easton, doing business as George Easton Furniture Company, in' the Circuit Court of Pinellas County in that the cause was barred by the three-year stat- ■ ute of limitations, § 95.11(5) (c), F.S.A.. The cases were consolidated in this court at. the request of the parties.
The complaints filed May 5, 1962 allege that the defendant Weir rented a warehouse to the plaintiff Easton for the storage of furniture. On June 14, 1958 defendant: Weir entered into a contract with defendant Federal Roofing to repair the roof of. the subject warehouse. The work was. started June 17, 1958 and completed on; July 5, 1958. The complaint then charges. that the defendant Federal Roofing negligently and carelessly permitted rotten lumber, dirt, debris and rain water to fall upon the plaintiff’s stock of furniture and furnishings,- thereby causing damage.
The plaintiff contends that there are two separate causes of action, one for damages-to the "Goods or Chattels,” which is clearly barred by the three-year statute of limitations, § 95.11(5) (c), F.S.A.; and the other for damages for the interruption of the ■ business and, therefore, is an injury not specifically provided for, which would make the limitation period four years under the - provisions of § 95.11(4), F.S.A.
We cannot agree with this contention. Although the courts of this State have not ruled directly on this point, the resulting damages to the furniture and consequential damages in the form of business interruption are nothing more than separate-*247elements of damage, the scale of measure of recovery. The cause of action, if any, is the injury that causes loss to another and arises as a result of the physical injury to plaintiff’s furniture. Such was the holding in Evarts v. Jones, 1959, 170 Cal.App.2d 197, 338 P.2d 627.
Florida courts have held that a single wrongful act gives rise to a single cause of action, and that the various injuries resulting from it are merely items of damage arising from the same wrong. Mims v. Reid, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 498; 62 A.L.R.2d 977, 984.
Accordingly, we hold that cause of action in both cases is barred by the three-year statute of limitations, § 95.11(5) (c), F.S.A.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ed wrongful publications. “Florida courts have held that a single wrongful act gives rise to a single cause of action, and that the various injuries resulting from it are merely items of damage arising from the same wrong”, Easton v. Wier, Fla.App., 167 So. 2d 245. As stated by the court in Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N.Y.2d 453, 280 N.Y.S.2d 641, 227 N.E. 2d 572, “We look for the reality, and the essence of the action and not its mere name.” A contrary result might very well enable plaintiffs…
-
Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Banyon Lakes C. Corp., 831 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…rts Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and Ovadia v. Bloom, 756 So. 2d 137, 140-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Although I believe Orlando Sports reached the correct result, unfortunately it cited to Easton v. Weir, 167 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), a case primarily dealing with the rule of Mims v. Reid, 98 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1957). This principle holds that all injuries and damages sustained as a result of a single wrongful act “must be claimed or recovered in one action or no…
-
Taylor v. Knight, 34 Fla. Supp. 104 (Leon Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)…ta in that the rule is founded on the plainest and most substantial justice — namely, that litigation should have an end, and that no person should be unnecessarily harassed with a multiplicity of suits. The Second Court of Appeal in Easton v. Weir, 167 So. 2d 245, quoting from Mims stated as follows — “Florida courts have held that a single wrongful act gives rise to a single cause of action, and that the various injuries [*108] resulting from it are merely items of damage arising from, the same wrong.” (It…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valentine W. Mims v. Reid, 98 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1957)