Brooks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brooks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

399 So. 2d 1, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19373

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1981

DocketNo. 78-2339

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 399 So. 2d 1 (Brooks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 399 So. 2d 1, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19373 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment against appellants on a counterclaim. The case arose out of a disputed bill of approximately $2,100. Southern Bell billed appellant this amount for relocating equipment used by a telephone answering service. Mr. Brooks, the owner of the answering service, refused to pay the bill, and eventually Southern Bell sued and recovered a portion of its bill. Brooks, on behalf of the answering service, filed a counterclaim and third party action based on theories of (1) breach of contract, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) abuse of process. Eventually, a jury returned substantial verdicts against Southern Bell and Western Electric for compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court granted motions for directed verdicts and entered final judgment in favor of Southern Bell and Western Electric. We affirm.

We conclude that there was simply no evidence of damage and that the plaintiffs’ proof did not support any of the theories actually stated in the pleadings. A great deal of argument is made concerning an unpled cause of action based on the theory of tortious breach of a statutorily [2]*2imposed duty. The answering service contends that Southern Bell violated State statutes, regulations, and internal tariffs and that this conduct subjected Southern Bell and Western Electric to separate tort liability. Appellants contend this theory was tried by consent. From the record it appears the trial court ruled to the contrary. We conclude the “breach of statute tort” was neither pled nor tried by consent.

The judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment against appellants on a counterclaim. The case arose out of a disputed bill of approximately $2,100. Southern Bell billed appellant this amount for relocating equipment used by a telephone answering service. Mr. Brooks, the owner of the answering service, refused to pay the bill, and eventually Southern Bell sued and recovered a portion of its bill. Brooks, on behalf of the answering service, filed a counterclaim and third party action based on theories of (1) breach of contract, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) abuse of process. Eventually, a jury returned substantial verdicts against Southern Bell and Western Electric for compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court granted motions for directed verdicts and entered final judgment in favor of Southern Bell and Western Electric. We affirm.

We conclude that there was simply no evidence of damage and that the plaintiffs’ proof did not support any of the theories actually stated in the pleadings. A great deal of argument is made concerning an unpled cause of action based on the theory of tortious breach of a statutorily [2]*2imposed duty. The answering service contends that Southern Bell violated State statutes, regulations, and internal tariffs and that this conduct subjected Southern Bell and Western Electric to separate tort liability. Appellants contend this theory was tried by consent. From the record it appears the trial court ruled to the contrary. We conclude the “breach of statute tort” was neither pled nor tried by consent.

The judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 So. 2d 1, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-southern-bell-telephone-telegraph-co-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack