Roberts v. Row

743 So. 2d 1145, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13193, 1999 WL 791384
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 6, 1999·No. No. 98-1233·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because a review of the record shows that there was conflicting evidence presented on the counterclaim to allow the jury to draw a reasonable inference of vicarious liability, we affirm the denial of the plaintiffs motions for directed verdict. Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 418-19, 94 So. 656, 657 (1922); Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985). In addition, as to the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to a provision in the underlying contract. The trial court had no discretion to decline to enforce this provision. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass’n v. Forte, 397 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Roberts v. Row, 743 So. 2d 1145, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13193, 1999 WL 791384 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

743 So. 2d 1145 (Roberts v. Row) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Melendez v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County
743 So. 2d 1145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)