From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ROSHKIND v. FAY

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 3, 1985
474 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-333.

June 12, 1985. Rehearing En Banc Denied September 3, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, John D. Wessel, J.

Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach and Bruce Zeidel of Cohen, Scherer and Cohn, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Michael B. Small of Small, Oakes, Berris, Clark Kohl, Palm Beach for appellee.


We reverse and remand with direction that the trial court enter final judgment for the defendant/appellant on the plaintiff/appellee's claim against him. Defendant/appellant should have been awarded a directed verdict as the record does not support the issue of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship being submitted to the jury. See Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., 384 So.2d 303, 307, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), decided by a panel of this court, sitting as associate judges of a companion court. See also Wackenhut Corporation v. Maimone, 389 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

In addition to the foregoing, we find it was error to permit the jury to consider compensatory damages in the absence of proof of expenses. See American Motorcycle Institute, Inc. v. Mitchell, 380 So.2d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). It was also error to tender the issue of punitive damages to the jury. See Insurance Field Services, Inc. v. White Inspection and Audit Services, Inc., supra.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

ROSHKIND v. FAY

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 3, 1985
474 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

ROSHKIND v. FAY

Case Details

Full title:DAVID M. ROSHKIND, D.M.D., APPELLANT, v. JAMES L. FAY, D.M.D., APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 3, 1985

Citations

474 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)