Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-214,62-214 |
| Citation | 150 So.2d 465 |
| Parties | AIRTECH SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MacDONALD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Smathers & Thompson and Samuel Brodnax, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Frates & Fay and Kermit G. Kindred, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and BARKDULL, JJ.
Appellant, defendant below, seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered consequent upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The appellee brought suit against the appellant seeking to recover for damage allegedly done to its aircraft by fire on February 23, 1956, while it was under the care, custody, and control of the appellant for the purpose of maintenance and repair. The complaint alleged that the fire was caused by the negligence of the appellant's employees while acting within the scope of their employment. If further alleged certain special damages allegedly occasioned by the loss of use of the damaged aircraft. Appellant answered admitting liability and alleging that the difference between the reasonable market value of the aircraft before and after the fire, and/or the cost of repairs, was $20,000. Subsequently, appellant deposited $20,000 in the registry of the court, tendering that amount in full and complete settlement of the appellee's claim. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the appellee on the question of liability and the cause went to trial before a jury on the sole issue of damages.
At the trial it was made to appear that, after discussing repairs with several repair installations, the appellee decided, upon the recommendation of its pilot, that the aircraft should not be repaired. Accordingly, requests for bids on an as-is/where-is basis were submitted to several persons and companies. These requests indicated that the aircraft had been damaged by fire but did not indicate the extent of the damage. On July 28, 1956, the aircraft was sold to the highest bidder for $17,556. The new owner had the aircraft ferried to California, where it was examined and tested and found to be structurally sound. He then had it repaired at a cost of about $5,000. At the close of all the evidence the cause was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of the appellee in the amount of $51,000. The judgment appealed was entered pursuant thereto.
The appellant contends that the appellee's damages should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downs v. United States
...to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value. The elements of compensation as quoted in Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co., 150 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla.App.1963) are: "(a) the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm ......
-
Mci Worldcom Network Services v. Mastec
...285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (same); Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So.2d 252, 253-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (same); Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (same); McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So.2d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (applying Restatement (Second) of Tort......
-
Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan
...(negligence); Wajay Bakery v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 177 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (same); Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So.2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (same). See also Annot., Buyer's Incidental and Consequential Damages from Seller's Breach under U.C.C. § 2-......
-
Ryan v. Atlantic Fertilizer & Chemical Co.
...is not totally destroyed, either cost of repair or difference in value before and after the damage, Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So.2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). As to the damage issues, Ryan produced documentation of neither income nor expenses, (other than Atlantic inv......
-
Measure of damages in property loss cases.
...997 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1994); Keyes Co. v. Shea, 372 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1979); Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1963). Cf. Fuller v. Martin, 125 So. 2d 4 (Ala. 1960); Ryland Group v. Daley, 537 S.E.2d 732, 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000); Ray......