Echols v. Hammet Co., Inc., 81-736

Citation423 So.2d 923
Decision Date10 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-736,81-736
PartiesBrad ECHOLS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The HAMMET COMPANY, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Larry Klein and Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Hazouri & Roth, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.

David F. Crow of Paxton, Crow, Bragg & Austin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant The Hammet Co., Inc.

HERSEY, Judge.

Appellant, injured in an automobile accident allegedly caused by a dangerous condition of the road, brought suit against appellee The Hammet Company, Inc. for negligent construction of the road and against the State of Florida Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) for negligent maintenance of the road. A settlement was reached between appellant and the D.O.T. and the matter proceeded to trial by jury on the remaining issues.

The jury found that the accident was caused by a combination of the negligence of all three parties apportioned as follows: appellant, 85%; Hammet, 8.3%; and the D.O.T., 6.7%. Damages were assessed at $1,700,000 and after reducing this by the amount attributable to appellant's comparative negligence, final judgment was originally entered against both appellees in the amount of $255,000. Subsequently, however, the court entered separate orders: the first directed a verdict in favor of appellee, Hammet, in accordance with its previously filed motion; the second directed a verdict in favor of the D.O.T. on the same basis. The net result was no recovery for appellant. The main appeal attacks the directed verdict in favor of Hammet, which, in turn, cross-appeals the directed verdict in favor of the D.O.T.

The trial court apparently based its direction of a verdict for Hammet on the doctrine of Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.2d 462 (Fla.1959). We explained that doctrine in El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), as follows:

In Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.2d 462 (Fla.1959), the Supreme Court of Florida considered the respective liability of an owner and contractor for injuries to a third person for negligence of the contractor in the construction of the improvement. The court held that, if the offending defect was latent and unknown to the owner, the contractor remained liable, even after the project was completed and accepted by the owner. The rationale of that holding is that the contractor's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. The Slavin court held, however, that if the defect were patent or if the owner learned of it and did not rectify the condition then the owner's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury rendering the owner liable and exonerating the contractor.

A case should be taken from the jury only where there is no evidence upon which reasonable men could disagree, that is, only where it is clear as a matter of law that one party or the other must prevail. Under the Slavin test Hammet could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Kala Investments, Inc. v. Sklar
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 31, 1989
    ...condition of stairway where railing height, balcony design and lighting failed to comply with building code) and Echols v. Hammet, 423 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (jury question as to whether defect in road was observable) and Welch v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 369 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 197......
  • Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 17, 1986
    ...of fact properly determined by the jury. Rimes v. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp., 483 So.2d 782 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); Echols v. Hammett Co., Inc., 423 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), cert. denied, 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983); Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA Second, the majority app......
  • Wagner v. City of Hialeah
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 11, 1984
    ...property owner where question of property owner's knowledge of slippery condition on floor was for jury to decide); Echols v. Hammet Co., 423 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983) (reversible error to direct verdict for defendant contractor, because there wa......
  • Goodstein v. Gary Fronrath Chevrolet, Inc., s. 84-107
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 14, 1984
    ...a new trial. The standards to be applied in directing a verdict are well known and do not need repeating. See Echols v. Hammet Company, Inc., 423 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. den., 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983); Tesher & Tesher v. Rothfield, 387 So.2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Her......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT