Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 74--1118
| Decision Date | 29 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1118,74--1118 |
| Citation | 312 So.2d 512 |
| Parties | 17 UCC Rep.Serv. 78 FORTE TOWERS SOUTH, INC., etc., et al., Appellants, v. HILL YORK SALES CORP., a Florida Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Adams, George, Wood, Lee, Schulte & Thompson and David L. Willing, Miami, for appellants.
Meltzer, West, Friesner & Goldman, Miami, Melvyn Trute, Bay Harbor Island, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., NATHAN, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Forte Towers South, Inc., Arkin Construction Company, Inc., and the Travelers Insurance Company, plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from a directed verdict entered at the conclusion of the presentation of their case in a jury trial.
The question is whether the evidence presented by the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence and breach of warranty. The evidence disclosed that Hill York Sales Corporation, defendant, was contracted by Arkin Construction Company in 1966, to design and install the air conditioning system in the Forte Towers South apartment building on Miami Beach. Further evidence disclosed that in 1969 and 1970, certain water lines to individual apartments ruptured on several occasions causing damage to carpeting, flooring and furnishings. The plaintiffs' expert witnesses testified that the air conditioning unit was defective in that when leakage began, the capillary bulb, which opens circuits and shuts down the pumps when water temperature rises, had to be bypassed; that one of the pipes was only partly connected by a three-thread turn; that there was an insufficient supply of condensing water; and that the control switches were defective, a defect not disclosed by ordinary inspection. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and then entered final judgment for the defendant. This appeal ensued.
Hill York contends that the directed verdict was proper since the plaintiffs' general contractor and architect inspected and approved the air conditioning systen, and that no evidence of negligence or of breach of implied warranty had been presented. When there is substantial evidence tending to prove an issue upon which the judge could lawfully find for a plaintiff, it is reversible error to direct a verdict for the defendant. Powell v. Jackson Grain Company, 1938, 134 Fla. 596, 184 So. 492. We find that there was ample...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramada Development Co. v. Rauch
...Stein, the architect.3 The Court, on December 1, 1978, amended this amount to $542,638.64.4 See Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So.2d 512 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975); Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., 339 So.2d 175 (Fla.1976); Holbrook v. Sarasota, 58 So.2d 862 (Fla.195......
-
Drexel Properties, Inc. v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc.
...of any artificial limits of either time or remoteness to the original purchaser. Page 18. See, also, Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Wittington Condominium Apartments, Inc. v. Braemar Corporation, 313 So.2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), was a ......
-
Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. v. Greenfield, 81-1980
...v. Shell Oil Co., 397 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 407 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1981); Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Non-delegable duties may result from contractual obligations. Irving v. Doctors Hospital of Lake Worth, Inc.,......
-
Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co.
...by a number of more recent decisions, e. g., Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 205 So.2d 291 (Fla.1967); Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So.2d 763 (Fla. 4th......