Hathaway v. Tindall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hathaway v. Tindall

497 So. 2d 1272, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2310, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1027

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 1272 (Hathaway v. Tindall) 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

Hathaway v. Tindall, 497 So. 2d 1272, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2310, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10437 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Even if, arguendo, the plaintiffs established that the defendant hospital made certain representations that might lead reasonable persons to believe that the radiologist in question was the hospital’s agent, they utterly failed to prove that they were aware of, much less relied on, any of these representations or detrimentally changed their position in reliance on them. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So.2d 491 (Fla.1983). Therefore, the trial court was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim that the radiologist was an apparent agent of the hospital and in directing a verdict for the hospital. The plaintiffs’ remaining point on appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Even if, arguendo, the plaintiffs established that the defendant hospital made certain representations that might lead reasonable persons to believe that the radiologist in question was the hospital’s agent, they utterly failed to prove that they were aware of, much less relied on, any of these representations or detrimentally changed their position in reliance on them. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So.2d 491 (Fla.1983). Therefore, the trial court was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim that the radiologist was an apparent agent of the hospital and in directing a verdict for the hospital. The plaintiffs’ remaining point on appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 1272, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2310, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hathaway-v-tindall-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack