HomeMy WebLinkAbout2740 . In Count I of the Comp~aint, Plaintirf alleqes that d'urinq
the period uf entrustzaent, the Defendant failed to exercise o=dinary
care and diligence in safeguarding Plaintif~'s property and as a
direct result thereof, the LCM-6 was lost at sea and in consequence
thereof, the Plaintiff sustained damages. '
Count II alleges that the Defendant has wholly failed,
neglected and refused to deliver said boat to Plaintiff's place of .
bnsiness in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, F~orida, and that Plaintiff
has stood ready at all times to pay Defendant the sum of $1,200.00
upon delivery of the LCM-6 persuant to the terms of the bailment,
and in consequence of said default of delivery, Plaintiff has sustained
damaqes.
The proper venue of an action is determined by F.S. §47.011,
which provides:
"Actions shall be brought only in the county
where the defendant resi.des, where the cause of
action accrued, or where the property in litigation
is located....."
In this case, Plaintiff bases its claim of venue in St. Lucie County
` upon the provision relating to where the cause of action accrued.
The Court has not found, and counsel have failed to cite, any Florida ~
Appellate decision which determines where the proper venue lies in a
bai~ment case such as. this. Def~ndant argues that proper venue is in -
Monroe County where he resides, where the agreement was made and where
the entrustment was created. The Plaintiff in response argues that
the cause of action accrued in St. Lucie County where the Lefendant,
uncler the terms of the bailment, was obligated to deliver the LCM-6
to the ~':aintiff.
In venue cases, Florida courts have recoqnized that c~uses
of action grawing out of contractural relationships may accrue in
FcRuM s
differing f~ depending upon the nature of the breach which forms
the gravamen of the particular ~ction. See M.A. Kite Co. v. A.C.
Samford, Inc., Fla., 130 So. 2d 99 (1961) What is the gravameri of
_ 2_ SOa1 ~:Jl P~f i e]J
- - -
b-`=~ . _ .
. c' ~