For Your Data Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. V. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. Illustration Brief
July 27, 2020
Edit
Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. representative brief summary
620 So. 2nd 1244 (Fla. 1993)
CASE FACTS
The case courtroom held that petitioner homeowners could non recover for purely economical losses from respondent concrete supplier nether a negligence theory. Petitioners owned homes built with, in addition to allegedly damaged by, respondent's concrete. Some of petitioners' claims against respondent were based on a theory of negligence. The appellate courtroom held that because no mortal was injured in addition to no other belongings was damaged, petitioners had no drive of activity against respondent inwards tort.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom approved the courtroom of appeal's decision, holding that the economical loss dominion was applicable in addition to precluded petitioner homeowners from recovering against respondent concrete supplier for purely economical losses nether a negligence claim.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
620 So. 2nd 1244 (Fla. 1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
After holding that petitioner homeowners were prevented from seeking tort damages from respondent concrete supplier nether the economical rule, the Third District Court of Appeal (Florida) applied for review of conflict the interrogation of whether a homeowner could recover for purely economical losses nether a negligence theory.CASE FACTS
The case courtroom held that petitioner homeowners could non recover for purely economical losses from respondent concrete supplier nether a negligence theory. Petitioners owned homes built with, in addition to allegedly damaged by, respondent's concrete. Some of petitioners' claims against respondent were based on a theory of negligence. The appellate courtroom held that because no mortal was injured in addition to no other belongings was damaged, petitioners had no drive of activity against respondent inwards tort.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal the supreme courtroom approved the appellate court's ruling, holding that contract principles were to a greater extent than appropriate than tort principles for recovering economical loss without accompanying physical injury or belongings damage.
- The supreme courtroom noted that for recovery inwards tort in that place had to live on a showing of harm higher upwardly in addition to beyond disappointed expectations, in addition to a buyer's wishing to relish the produce goodness of his create produce was non an involvement that tort constabulary traditionally protected.
- Finally, the supreme courtroom held that respondent's concrete did non harm other property, equally required for a claim inwards tort, because petitioners purchased homes equally a finished product, non equally private components.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom approved the courtroom of appeal's decision, holding that the economical loss dominion was applicable in addition to precluded petitioner homeowners from recovering against respondent concrete supplier for purely economical losses nether a negligence claim.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law