Lingard v. Kiraly
| Decision Date | 16 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-333,58-333 |
| Citation | 110 So.2d 715 |
| Parties | 37 Lab.Cas. P 65,402 Norman LINGARD, d/b/a Tropical Aircraft Repair, Appellant, v. A. KIRALY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford & Williams, James A. Dixon, Jr., and Frank A. Howard, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Edward J. Dirse, Coral Gables, for appellee.
The appellant was defendant in an action brought by the appellee for alleged tortious interference by defendant with plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff received a jury verdict and from the final judgment this appeal is taken. The appellant assigns as error the trial judge's denial of appellant's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all of the evidence. We find the motion well founded because of plaintiff's failure to prove that defendant's action was the proximate cause of the damages proved, i. e., plaintiff's loss of his employment.
It is the plaintiff's contention that he was discharged from his employment because of a false affidavit made by the defendant. This affidavit contained the charge that plaintiff had solicited and accepted from the defendant an unauthorized commission in return for a price consideration upon a sale of property belonging to plaintiff's employer. The testimony, as to the truth of the affidavit, is in conflict. Upon consideration of a motion for directed verdict, the evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the directed verdict is sought. Therefore the jury must be presumed to have found the affidavit false. We must next consider whether the evidence, viewed in the same light, establishes that the defendant's action of giving the affidavit was the proximate cause of the discharge.
The undisputed testimony of the responsible officers of the employer was that upon suspicion of plaintiff's wrongdoing they went to defendant's place of business in order to interrogate him regarding the nature and extent of his business relationship with their employee, the plaintiff. After the interview, an investigator prepared an affidavit, which contained defendant's statements concerning the alleged wrongdoing of the plaintiff. The defendant at plaintiff's employer's request, executed the affidavit. Subsequent investigations of the plaintiff were conducted. He was also interrogated by company officials for the purpose of receiving his explanation of the statements made by the defendant. After the conclusion of the investigations and interviews, the plaintiff was discharged. The personnel director testified that the decision to terminate plaintiff's employment was based upon: 1) plaintiff's failure to contribute any explanation other than a flat denial, 2) plaintiff's evasive answers to direct questions.
The courts of this state have long recognized the right of a person to pursue his employment free from malicious interference. See Chipley v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. 206, 1 So. 934; Duval Laundry Co. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726; Faulk v Allen, 152 Fla. 413, 12 So.2d 109; Regan v. Davis, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 324. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Times Pub. Co., Inc.
...v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. 206, 212, 1 So. 934, 938 (1887); Mulligan v. Wallace, 349 So.2d 745, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lingard v. Kiraly, 110 So.2d 715, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). The reporters' conduct in this case is not the type of conduct at which the tort is usually directed. The reporters did......
-
Spurlock v. Ely
...69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); Seaway Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, Fla.App., 242 So.2d 192 (1970); See also Lingard v. Kiraly, Fla.App., 110 So.2d 715, 717 (1959) (plaintiff must establish by evidence that the employment was terminated because of the defendant's acts). We agree with ......
-
Hospital Corp. of America v. Jarvinen, s. 92-0759
...Riverwalk Properties, Inc. v. White, 531 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 541 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1989); Lingard v. Kiraly, 110 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Tietig v. Southeast Regional Constr. Corp., 557 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA Certainly there was ample proof that Dorsette would prob......
-
Conda v. Plain
...upon evidence which can be pointed to in the record as constituting a reasonable foundation. Babcock v. Flowers, supra; Lingard v. Kiraly, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 715; Allen v. Powell, 1943, 152 Fla. 443, 12 So.2d 378; Golden v. Morris, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d In the case at bar, the minor plain......
-
Satellite digital radio searching for novel theories of action.
...note 98, at 996-1001. (124.) The defendant must be shown to be the cause of both the interference and the loss. See Lingard v. Kiraly, 110 So.2d 715 (Fla. App. 1959); Wahl v. Strous, 25 A.2d 820 (Pa. (125.) Here we speak of both the interference caused to the wireless installations as well ......