Roshkind v. Fay

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roshkind v. Fay

474 So. 2d 1, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1457, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15138

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 1985

DocketNo. 84-333

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 1 (Roshkind v. Fay) 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

Roshkind v. Fay, 474 So. 2d 1, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1457, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15138 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

We reverse and remand with direction that the trial court enter final judgment for the defendant/appellant on the plaintiff/appellee’s claim against him. Defendant/appellant should have been awarded a directed verdict as the record does not support the issue of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship being submitted to the jury. See Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., 384 So.2d 303, 307, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), decided by a panel of this court, sitting as associate judges of a companion court. See also Wackenhut Corporation v. Maimone, 389 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

In addition to the foregoing, we find it was error to permit the jury to consider compensatory damages in the absence of proof of expenses. See American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So.2d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). It was also error to tender the issue of punitive damages to the jury. See Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., supra.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM

We reverse and remand with direction that the trial court enter final judgment for the defendant/appellant on the plaintiff/appellee’s claim against him. Defendant/appellant should have been awarded a directed verdict as the record does not support the issue of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship being submitted to the jury. See Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., 384 So.2d 303, 307, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), decided by a panel of this court, sitting as associate judges of a companion court. See also Wackenhut Corporation v. Maimone, 389 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

In addition to the foregoing, we find it was error to permit the jury to consider compensatory damages in the absence of proof of expenses. See American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So.2d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). It was also error to tender the issue of punitive damages to the jury. See Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., supra.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 1, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1457, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roshkind-v-fay-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack