JIMARYE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HUBERT A. PIPKIN, 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.
Jimarye, Inc. appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to its former employee Hubert Pipkin for alleged breach of an employment contract. The appellate court affirms, holding that whether the employee substantially breached the contract was a jury question because the evidence could reasonably support conflicting conclusions.
The trial court properly submitted the breach question to the jury because the evidence could lead reasonable minds to conflicting conclusions. Whether an employee substantially breached an employment contract is a jury question if the evidence could support different conclusions; it is a question of law for the court only if the evidence cannot reasonably lead to conflicting conclusions.
“whether an employee has breached the terms of his employment contract in such a substantial degree as to justify his discharge is generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury if the pertinent evidence on this issue could lead the minds of reasonable men to conflicting conclusions. If not, the issue becomes a question of law to be decided by the court.”
Establishes the governing legal rule distinguishing jury questions from questions of law in employment contract breach cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJimarye, Inc. and Hubert Pipkin entered into an employment contract. A dispute arose regarding whether Pipkin violated the terms of the contract in a …
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 Question Of Law Vs. Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, who was defendant in the trial court, has appealed a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding damages to appellee for the alleged breach of an employment contract entered into between the parties to the action. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the evidence, and further erred in denying its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict.
It is appellant’s position that the evidence adduced by the parties at the trial establishes as a matter of law that appellee violated the terms and provisions of his employment contract with appellant, and the trial court therefore should have granted its motion for directed verdict rather than submit the case to the jury for its determination.
The general rule appears to be that whether an employee has breached the terms of his employment contract in such a substantial degree as to justify his discharge is generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury if the pertinent evidence on this issue could lead the minds of reasonable men to conflicting conclusions. If not, the issue becomes a question of law to be decided by the court.1
Our review of the record reveals evidence which might lead a reasonable mind to conclude either that appellee had not violated the provisions of his employment contract, or if so, such violation was not sufficiently substantial to justify his discharge. Even though there is other evidence in the record which might reasonably lead to a contrary conclusion, we hold that the trial court did not commit error in sub*670•mitting the issues in this case to the jury for its decision. No question has been ■raised as to the sufficiency of the instructions on the law of the case as given to the jury by the court at the conclusion of the trial. It was essentially a jury question -as to whether appellee had substantially "breached his contract of employment, and if not, whether his discharge was wrongful, justifying an award of the damages fixed "by the jury in its verdict. Appellant having failed to demonstrate harmful error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD IK., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Punkar v. King Plastic Corp., 290 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…to be decided by the jury if the pertinent evidence on this issue could lead the minds of reasonable men to conflicting conclusions. If not, the issue becomes a question of law to be decided by the court. (Jimarye, Inc. v. Pipkin, Fla.App.1st, 1966, 181 So. 2d 669). The testimony adduced on this point, as shown in the record, was conflicting in several aspects. However, the ruling of the trial court, as the verdict of a jury, comes to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness. This court is withou…
-
Strahm v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 285 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ubstantial degree as to justify his discharge is generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury if the pertinent evidence on this issue could lead the minds of reasonable men to conflicting conclusions. Jimarye, Inc. v. Pipkin, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 669. In this cause, the pivotal issue was whether appellant’s refusal to be reassigned or, alternatively, to resign was insubordination. Appellant testified that he was placed on the horns of a dilemma and [*681] given no reasonable alternative because…
-
Nevel v. Monteleone, 514 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…a question of fact to be decided by the jury if the pertinent evidence on this issue could lead the minds of reasonable men to conflicting conclusions. If not, the issue becomes a question of law to be decided by the court. Jimarye, Inc., v. Pipkin, 181 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Accord, Strahm v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 285 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The trial judge never decided whether the employee’s breach was sufficiently “substantial” to justify discharge because he concluded, based…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence