Enfield's Miami Photo, Inc. v. Keyes Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Enfield's Miami Photo, Inc. v. Keyes Co.

489 So. 2d 1203, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1309, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8305

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1986

DocketNos. 85-1632, 85-1633 and 85-1635

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 489 So. 2d 1203 (Enfield's Miami Photo, Inc. v. Keyes 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

Enfield's Miami Photo, Inc. v. Keyes Co., 489 So. 2d 1203, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1309, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8305 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in the trial court appeals an adverse final judgment for property damage caused by a fire originating in the defendant’s copy machine. The cause of action sought to impose strict liability on the defendant, which had leased the copy machine, retaining exclusive control of all repairs and maintenance. The principal point of the appellant on appeal is the giving of a certain jury instruction. However, no objection to the instruction was made and therefore the error (not being of a fundamental nature) was not preserved. Middelveen v. Sibson Realty, Inc. 417 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Lollie v. General Motors Corporation, 407 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Page v. Cory Corporation, 347 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

By cross appeal the appellees urge error in the failure to award prejudgment interest. With this we concur and return the matter to the trial court with directions to include prejudgment interest in the amount of the final judgment under the authority of Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing Company, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in the trial court appeals an adverse final judgment for property damage caused by a fire originating in the defendant’s copy machine. The cause of action sought to impose strict liability on the defendant, which had leased the copy machine, retaining exclusive control of all repairs and maintenance. The principal point of the appellant on appeal is the giving of a certain jury instruction. However, no objection to the instruction was made and therefore the error (not being of a fundamental nature) was not preserved. Middelveen v. Sibson Realty, Inc. 417 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Lollie v. General Motors Corporation, 407 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Page v. Cory Corporation, 347 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

By cross appeal the appellees urge error in the failure to award prejudgment interest. With this we concur and return the matter to the trial court with directions to include prejudgment interest in the amount of the final judgment under the authority of Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing Company, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 So. 2d 1203, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1309, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enfields-miami-photo-inc-v-keyes-co-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack