Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc.

491 So. 2d 612, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1586, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8940

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1986

DocketNo. BI-468

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 491 So. 2d 612 (Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc.) 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

Hines v. Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc., 491 So. 2d 612, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1586, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8940 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary judgment for defendant, Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc. Under the evidence shown in the record, it is clear that the veterinarian, Dr. Bryan Smith, was an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of defendant. Wendland v. Akers, 356 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Neither party has argued whether defendant was under a nondelegable duty to administer the brucellosis tests with reasonable care, which might make the livestock market responsible for the alleged negligence of Dr. Smith, so we find it unnecessary to consider such issue.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary judgment for defendant, Columbia Livestock Market of Lake City, Inc. Under the evidence shown in the record, it is clear that the veterinarian, Dr. Bryan Smith, was an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of defendant. Wendland v. Akers, 356 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Neither party has argued whether defendant was under a nondelegable duty to administer the brucellosis tests with reasonable care, which might make the livestock market responsible for the alleged negligence of Dr. Smith, so we find it unnecessary to consider such issue.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 So. 2d 612, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1586, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-columbia-livestock-market-of-lake-city-inc-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack