AMERVEN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JUAN A. ABBADIE, DOING BUSINESS AS SESKO INTERNATIONAL CO., AND CHESTER, BLACKBURN & RODER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
Amerven sold an automobile with a delivery deadline to the Netherlands Antilles, but the car was not loaded onto the vessel as contracted. The court reversed the dismissal of Amerven's negligence claims against Chester, Blackburn & Roder, Inc., holding that an agent for a disclosed principal may be individually liable for tort despite the principal-agent relationship.
An agent for a disclosed principal may be individually liable for tort, including negligence. The question of whether an agency relationship exists that shields an agent from liability is a factual matter for the jury to determine, not a legal question suitable for disposition on a motion to dismiss.
[1] The existence of an agency relationship is a question for the jury to determine unless the evidence is susceptible to but one interpretation.
[2] An agent for a disclosed principal may be individually liable for torts committed in the course of the agency.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The general rule is that, unless the evidence is susceptible to but one interpretation (which is not the situation at bar) the question of whether an agency relationship exists is for the jury to determine.”
Establishes that agency status is ordinarily a jury question, not one to be decided on a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerven sold an automobile conditionally on delivery to the Netherlands Antilles by July 31, 1968. Sesko International Co. orally agreed to arrange tr…
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 Tort Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was plaintiff below, and filed its complaint alleging that the appel-lees were jointly and severally liable in contract and tort because they either: (a) breached their individual contracts with the appellant; (b) jointly breached their contracts with the appellant; or (c) were jointly and severally negligent so as to proximately cause the appellant to lose the sale of an automobile because either or both appellees caused the automobile not to be delivered as scheduled to the Netherland Antilles. The appellant had sold an automobile to a customer on the condition that the automobile would be delivered to the Netherland Antilles no later than July 31, 1968. Appellee Seseo International Co. orally agreed to arrange transport for the car to arrive in Curacao no later than July 31; Seseo International thereupon delivered the auto to ap-pellee Chester, Blackburn and Roder, Inc., a registered ship broker, who contracted to be responsible for having the automobile brought aboard a vessel owned by Atlantic Lines Ltd. The vessel sailed from Miami on July 22 and arrived in Curacao without the automobile. The car had been left at dockside in Miami and the customer cancelled his purchase order.
The appellee, Chester, Blackburn and Roder, Inc., filed its motion to dismiss which was granted. The appellant has appealed the final judgment entered upon the motion to dismiss. Chester, Blackburn & Roder, Inc. contends that because of its status as the agent of a disclosed principal, namely, Atlantic Lines Ltd., no cause of action can lie against it, but rather may only be brought against the principal.
We cannot accept the above position. The final judgment entered in favor of Chester, Blackburn and Roder, Inc., was error. The general rule is that, unless the evidence is susceptible to but one interpretation (which is not the situation at bar) the question of whether an agency relationship exists is for the jury to determine. Standard Oil Company v. Nickerson, 103 Fla. 701, 138 So. 55 (1931) ; Financial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Southmost Vegetable Cooperative Association, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 69. The final judgment being appealed precluded a jury, or the finder of fact, from determining whether Chester, Blackburn and Roder, Inc. was such an agent as to be shielded from liability due to any negligence in the carrying out of its proper duties for the disclosed principal.
Moreover, in the case of Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1968), the court summarized Florida’s common law relating to liability in certan agency situations, and concluded that the agent for a disclosed principal may be individually liable for tort. The specific tort charged in Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc., supra, was fraud and misrepresentation; however, that distinction alone should not prevent the principles of that case from operating on the instant facts. The scope of Chester, Blackburn and Roder’s duties involved delivering the auto on board the carrier vessel; if that delivery was never effected, then a cause of action may lie against this party.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the final judgment being appealed is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Jaar v. The Univ. OF Miami, 474 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ally questions of fact to be resolved by the factfinder, Dade County Police Benevolent Association v. City of Homestead, 444 So. 2d 465, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), unless the evidence is susceptible of only one interpretation. Amerven, Inc. v. Abbadie, 238 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). See Eberhardy v. General Motors Corp., 404 F.Supp. 826 (M.D.Fla.1975). However, the evaluation of employment contracts and employment status is a question of law to be resolved by the trial court. Sosa v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers…
-
Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ice officer when he arrested Cirou. The existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question to be determined by the jury as an issue of fact. Scott v. Sun Bank of Volusia County, 408 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Amerven, Inc. v. Abbadie, 238 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). For the same reason it was error to direct a verdict on the battery claim; it was also error to decide as a matter of law that Basler was an independent contractor. ■ The order granting a new trial on the defendant/Basler’s coun…
-
Scott v. SUN Bank OF Volusia Cnty., 408 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…and & Pacific Railroad Co., 2 Ill.App.3d 906, 274 N.E. 2d 507 (1971). The existence of an agency relationship, however, is ordinarily a question to be determined by the jury in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial. Amerven, Inc. v. Abbadie, 238 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Financial Fire & Cas. Co. v. Southmost Veg. Coop Ass’n., 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Therefore, the trial court’s action in dismissing counts III and IV of appellant’s third amended complaint was error. REVERSED and REMAND…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bobby Jones Garden Apts., Inc. v. Suleski, 391 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Hernandez v. State, 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Nickerson, 103 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1931)