Taylor Imported Motors, Inc. v. Smiley

• Decision Date: 29 June 1962
• Docket Number: No. 2735,2735
• Citation: 143 So.2d 66
• Parties: TAYLOR IMPORTED MOTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Robert L. SMILEY, doing business as Ace Taxi, and George Richard Colton, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 66

143 So.2d 66

TAYLOR IMPORTED MOTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Robert L. SMILEY, doing business as Ace Taxi, and George Richard Colton, Appellees.

No. 2735.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 1962.

Rehearing Denied July 25, 1962.

Henry W. Jewett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Miller, Cone, Owen, Wagner & Nugent, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

McMULLEN, NEIL C., Associate Judge.

This action claimed damages for loss of profit caused by loss of a sale of an automobile because defendants tortiously damaged it. No claim is asserted having relationship to the actual damages to the automobile nor is the extent of such damage disclosed in the pleadings under question. The appeal is from a Final Judgment entered on an Order Granting the Motion of Defendants-Appellees to Dismiss Appellant's Amended Complaint for failure 'to state a claim upon which relief can be granted * * *' The Amended Complaint alleged Plaintiff was a dealer in unique foreign automobiles and to fulfill a sales contract, he 'procured' from a Miami dealer a particular, black 1960 Mercedes-Benz. Plaintiff had prior thereto entered into the contract to sell this particular type automobile for a profit; prior to delivery to Plaintiff's purchaser, it was damaged by the negligent act of Defendants; as a result, he was unable to complete his contract of sale to his purchaser, who refused it; this was the only automobile filling specifications in the South Florida area; he thereby lost the profit he would have derived from the sale and is out certain expense of transporting the automobile to and from Miami.

The Order Granting Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint gave as grounds:

'It appears to the Court that the plaintiff's damages were not the natural and probable consequences of the tortious act alleged and did not ordinarily or naturally flow from the same; nor were such damages within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.'

The question to be determined is whether loss of profit and incidental expenses occasioned by the loss of a sale of an automobile is recoverable as a measure of damages under the facts here alleged.

The governing principal of law is stated in 15 Am.Jur., Damages, Sec. 66, as follows:

'* * * The damages cannot properly include compensation for injuries which are remote from the wrongful act or which are of an uncertain or a speculative character * * * Remote damages are such as are the unusual and unexpected result, not reasonably to be anticipated from an accidental or unusual combination of circumstances--a result beyond and over which the negligent party has no control.'

The actual damage to the automobile itself would be recoverable by the real party in interest. The measure of those damages is well settled, and conceded by both parties, to be the difference between the market value immediately before and after the accident together with essential expenses incurred and the value of time spent in restoring or preserving the property. But the Plaintiff here by his pleadings has restricted his claim solely to loss of profits and the expenses occasioned in engaging upon this collateral transaction.

The claim here must rest upon pure tort law principals. Appellant and Appellees agree there is no Florida case directly in point. In this state, recoverable damages occasioned by a tort include all damages which are a natural, proximate, probable or direct consequence of the act, but do not include remote consequences. See Mansfield v. Brigham, 1926, 91 Fla. 109, 107 So. 336; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Peters, 1919, 77 Fla. 411, 83 So. 559; Warfield v. Hepburn, 1912, 62 Fla. 409, 418, 57 So. 618; Hall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1910, 59 Fla. 275, 51 So. 819, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 639; Vaughan's Seed Store v. Stringfellow, 1908, 56 Fla. 708, 48 So. 410; Benedict Pineapple Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1908, 55 Fla. 514, 46 So. 732, 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 92; Briggs v. Brown, 1908, 55 Fla. 417, 46 So. 325.

In the case of Brock v. Gale, 1874, 14 Fla. 523, Defendant's loss of Plaintiff's dental tools justified recovery of their market value, but not loss of the dentist's profit or income from not being able to practice his profession until the tools were...