FLORIDA SMALL BUSINESS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI SHIPYARDS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to direct a verdict for the defendant in a bailment contract case. The court found that there was no complete delivery of the boat to the defendant, a prerequisite for a bailment, as the plaintiff had retained control through its employees and a prospective buyer's crew.
The court held that a directed verdict for the defendant was proper because a complete delivery, essential for a bailment, was not established. The court also held that any error in excluding testimony was harmless.
“There was no "complete delivery" to the defendant, essential to a bailment, because for some two weeks prior to the time the boat sank the plaintiff-owner had placed it in possession and control of an employee to prepare it for sale, and, after him, in the possession and control of the crew of a prospective purchaser, consisting of a captain, engineer, and another employee.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding that a bailment did not occur due to the lack of complete delivery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant on a bailment contract concerning a boat moored at the defendant's boatyard. The boat sank, and the plaintiff alleged…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff below appeals from an adverse judgment in an action brought on a bailment contract, and contends the court erred (1) in directing a verdict for the defendant and (2) in excluding certain proffered testimony. We find those contentions to be without merit and affirm.
The subject of the alleged bailment was a boat moored to a dock in defendant’s boatyard. There was no “complete delivery” to the defendant, essential to a bailment, because for some two weeks prior to the time the boat sank the plaintiff-owner had placed it in possession and control of an employee to prepare it for sale, and, after him, in the possession and control of the crew of a prospective purchaser, consisting of a captain, engineer, and another employee. No breach of duty by the defendant was established. See Dunwoody v. Saunders, 50 Fla. 202, 39 So. 965; Coombs v. Rice, 64 Fla. 202, 59 So. 958; Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc., 5 Cir. 1954, 213 F.2d 561, 565. As to the remaining contention, relating to exclusion of evidence, the error if any was harmless.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe Sys. FOR Bus., Inc. v. Intertrans Corp., 650 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ds left at port damaged while awaiting transshipment were responsibility of outbound shipper; agent arranging for outbound shipment was bailee), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.1978). Compare Florida Small Business Corp. v. Miami Shipyards Corp., 175 So. 2d 46, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (owner of boatyard where boat was usually moored not responsible for damage to boat because “for some two weeks prior to time the boat sank the plaintiff-owner had placed [boat] in possession and control of an employee to prep…
-
Indus. Exp. Int'l Corp. v. Henry's Transfer, Inc., 395 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Armored Car Services, Inc. v. First National Bank of Miami, 114 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Florida Small Business Corporation v. Miami Shipyards Corporation, 175 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Olshen v. Robinson, 248 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979).…
-
Marvin Blum for the use & benefit of Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Merrill Stevens DRY Dock Co., 409 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…urt properly found that, at the time of the disappearance of the vessel, there was no contract of bailment because there was no completed delivery of possession, custody, or control. Florida Small Business Corporation v. Miami Shipyards Corporation, 175 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc., 213 F. 2d 561, 565 (5th Cir. 1954); cf., Empire Tool Company v. Wells, 227 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc., 213 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Chauncy B. Coombs v. Rice, 64 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1912)
- Dunwoody v. Saunders, 50 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1905)