A business is justified in barring a person from its premises based on a founded safety concern, negating a claim for intentional interference with a business relationship.
An employee of a subcontractor was terminated after the prime contractor demanded his removal from its premises following an altercation. The employee sued the prime contractor for intentional interference with a business relationship. The court examines whether the prime contractor’s action was justified. The rule applied is that a business has the right to bar a person from its premises when the action is based on a founded safety concern. Considering the nature of the conduct, the motive to prevent future altercations, and the interests advanced, the court finds the prime contractor’s action justified. The court reverses the denial of the directed verdict and remands with instructions to enter judgment for the prime contractor.
At page 230 Determining justification for barring entry to private property5 citing cases“conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance.”
- Thompson v. Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (M.D. Fla. 2005).published Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). 15 .
- Weight-Rite Golf Corp. v. United States Golf Ass'n, 766 F. Supp. 1104 (M.D. Fla. 1991).published“conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance”
- SEC. TITLE GUAR. CORP. v. McDill Columbus Corp., 543 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).published“conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance”
- Alphamed Pharm. Corp. v. Arriva Pharm., Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (S.D. Fla. 2005).publishedSee Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citing Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)).
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Times Pub. Co., 780 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).publishedRESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 767 (1979); see Smith v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 512 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So.2d 380 , 383 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Other citing cases
- NETWORKIP, LLC v. Spread Enter., Inc., 922 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).published
v.
EMERY AIR FREIGHT CORP., d/b/a Emery World Wide, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
[*230] James C. Blecke and Susan S. Lerner, Miami, for appellant/cross-appellee.
James O. Nelson, Steven R. Berger and William Liston, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Smith was an employee of C & J under a terminable-at-will contract. C & J's contract with Emery Air Freight to provide loading services to Emery required Smith to work on Emery's premises. After Smith was involved in an altercation with Mike Sherman, an Emery employee, Emery demanded that C & J remove Smith from its premises. C & J terminated Smith because it had no work for him except at Emery.
Smith brought an action against Emery for intentional interference with a business relationship. The court granted Emery's motion for a directed verdict on Smith's claim for punitive damages but denied Emery's motion for directed verdict on liability. A jury awarded Smith $35,000 in damages.
Smith appeals the directed verdict on punitive damages, and Emery cross-appeals the denial of its motion for a directed verdict on liability. We reverse the denial of Emery's motion for a directed verdict.
A claimed intentional interference with a business relationship requires a showing of both an intent to damage the business relationship and a lack of justification to take the action which caused the damage. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
It cannot be said that Emery acted solely with a desire to interfere with Smith's employment. Several factors can be considered in determining whether Emery's action was justified. These include the nature of Emery's conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979). The nature of Emery's conduct was the prohibition of entry onto its private property by a specific person. Its motive and intent was to prevent future altercations in the workplace. A business has the right to bar a person from its premises when such action is based on a founded safety concern. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fleitas, 488 So.2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (FPL had privilege to bar plaintiff from premises of nuclear power plant based on founded suspicion of illegal drug use). Emery's action was justified under the circumstances and its motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.
We need not reach the issue presented by Smith's appeal.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for cross-appellant Emery.