F & B CECO, INC. OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GALAXY STUDIOS, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
F & B Ceco appeals a judgment entered after retrial on damages in a contract dispute with Galaxy Studios. The court affirmed the trial judge's procedure of severing the liability issue from damages and submitting the question of foreseeability to the jury, holding that trial courts have broad discretion in conducting trials absent controlling statutes or procedural rules prohibiting the method used.
The trial court's procedure did not constitute prejudicial error. Trial courts have broad discretion in conducting trials absent controlling statutes or procedural rules prohibiting the procedure, and the record shows the trial judge conducted a fair trial with proper jury instructions on foreseeability.
“In the absence of a controlling statute or overriding rule of procedure trial courts have a broad discretion in conducting the trial of a cause.”
Establishes the legal standard governing trial court discretion in procedural matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a contract dispute where Galaxy Studios sued Ceco for damages arising from improper camera repair work. The case had been previousl…
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 Foreseeability Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
We reversed a final judgment in this cause after determining that some of the evidence admitted concerned losses too remote to be properly charged as damages against Ceco and remanded the cause for retrial on the issues of damages. (F & B Ceco, Inc. of Florida v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 597.) Upon remand a final judgment was again entered in favor of Galaxy, and this appeal' followed.
Ceco’s first point urges that the trial court followed improper procedure in determining the amount of damages.
At the beginning of the second trial the judge and the attorneys held a conference at which the judge announced he would sever the issue of “liability” from the issue of damages. The court proposed to submit the question of foreseeability of damages 1 to the jury. If the jury decided the question in Galaxy’s favor, then the judge would decide the amount of damages after a hearing. Ceco’s counsel objected to the severance when the judge announced it; but on two subsequent occasions during the trial he agreed to the procedure outlined by the trial judge. When the trial reached the point for the jury to be instructed, the judge gave the following key instructions:
*76******
“The issue for your determination is whether or not the plaintiff has proven, either by a custom of the trade or by direct knowledge imputed to the defendant, that the type of damage here sustained by the plaintiff is such as was reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time they entered into the agreement to repair.
“The parties need not have actually contemplated the precise injuries that did in fact result from the failure to repair the camera properly, but the actual consequences must be such as the parties, in view of all of the facts known by them at the time of the making of the contract or which they should have known at that time, may reasonably supposed to have been considered as the likely result of the failure to repair the camera properly in the ordinary course of events.
******
“If, after a full consideration of all of the evidence in the case, you believe that the plaintiff has proven his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the form of your verdict should be: ‘We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Galaxy Studios, Incorporated, on the issue of liability and find that the damages sustained by the plaintiff were reasonably foreseeable by the parties. So say we, all,’ and signed by the foreman.
“However, if you believe that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the form of your verdict should be: ‘We, the jury, find for the defendant. So say we, all.’ ”
******
We hold that the foregoing circumstances clearly show the appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, and we affirm the judgment appealed. “In the absence of a controlling statute or overriding rule of procedure trial courts have a broad discretion in conducting the trial of a cause.” Bowen v. Manuel, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 341; Passino v. Sanburn, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 61. None of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the procedure followed by the trial judge nor does any Florida Statute. The record, especially the instructions to the jury quoted above, shows dearly that the trial judge conducted a fair trial.
Ceco has presented two additional points, one addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s finding of foreseeability, the other to the court’s use of part of the transcript of the first trial in the second trial. No error has been demon-onstrated under either of these points.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1976)…or overriding rule of procedure, trial courts have a broad discretion in the trial of a cause. Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla.1956); Bowen v. Manuel, 144 So. 2d 341 (Fla.2d [*473] DCA, 1962); F & B Ceco, Inc. of Florida v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., 216 So. 2d 75 (Fla.3d DCA, 1968). However, we do agree that the trial judge erred in announcing that he would consider the wife’s deposition and then proceed to determine the matter without receipt or consideration thereof. In Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So. 2d 266 (Fla.1…
-
Gallub v. del Vecchio, 301 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…s not shown an abuse of discretion by the trial court in controlling the conduct of the trial in this case. Stager v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 15; F & B Ceco, Inc. of Florida v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 75. The plaintiff’s own testimony respecting his permanent injury was suffi [*787] cient to justify a charge to the jury, which the court gave upon that issue. Salvador v. Munoz, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 442. The doctor who did appear as plaintiffs wi…
-
The Natural Kitchen, Inc. v. Am. Transworld Corp., 449 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…e precise injuries which occurred so long as the actual consequences could have reasonably been expected to flow from the breach. See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Redding, 100 Fla. 495, 129 So. 743 (1930); F & B Ceco, Inc. v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., 216 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1969). As stated in 5 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1010, at 79 (1964): All that is necessary, in order to charge the defendant with a particular loss, is that it is one that ordinarily follo…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bowen v. Manuel, 144 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Evenson v. Miami Med. Ctr., Inc., 128 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Passino v. Fern Warner Sanburn and E. Stanley Sanburn, 190 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- F & B Ceco v. Galaxy Studios, Inc., 201 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hardy v. State, 190 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)