Cespedes v. HBC Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cespedes v. HBC Florida, Inc.

785 So. 2d 523, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15432, 2000 WL 1745168

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 29, 2000·No. No. 3D00-1214·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the trial court concluded, there was no competent evidence that liability could be imposed on the appellee on the sole asserted basis that it was engaged in a joint enterprise with the active tortfeasor. See Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So.2d 510 (Fla.1957); Russell v. Thielen, 82 So.2d 143 (Fla.1955); Metric Engineering v. Gonzalez, 707 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998); Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 32 (Fla.1976). The judgment for the defendant entered on a directed verdict in its favor is therefore

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

As the trial court concluded, there was no competent evidence that liability could be imposed on the appellee on the sole asserted basis that it was engaged in a joint enterprise with the active tortfeasor. See Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So.2d 510 (Fla.1957); Russell v. Thielen, 82 So.2d 143 (Fla.1955); Metric Engineering v. Gonzalez, 707 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998); Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 32 (Fla.1976). The judgment for the defendant entered on a directed verdict in its favor is therefore

Affirmed.

Cespedes v. HBC Florida, Inc., 785 So. 2d 523, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15432, 2000 WL 1745168 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

785 So. 2d 523 (Cespedes v. HBC Florida, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related