History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hathaway v. Tindall
497 So. 2d 1272
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1986
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Even if, arguendo, the plaintiffs established that the defendant hospital made certain representations that might lead reasonable persons to believe that the radiologist in question was the hospital’s agent, they utterly failed to prove that they were aware of, much less relied on, any of these representations or detrimentally changed their position in reliance on them. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So.2d 491 (Fla.1983). Therefore, the trial court was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim that the radiologist was an apparent agent of the hospital and in directing a verdict for the hospital. The plaintiffs’ remaining point on appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Hathaway v. Tindall
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Nov 4, 1986
Citation: 497 So. 2d 1272
Docket Number: No. 85-1027
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.