Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 1974 · Corporations

296 So. 2d 536 (1974)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsPartnershipsJoint VenturesVicarious LiabilityReleasesjoint venturepartnershipprofit sharing

Facts

Wilson's automobile was struck by a farm vehicle owned by George E. Lytton and driven by Arnold Campbell. The evidence showed that Lytton farmed tomatoes while Florida Tomato Packers furnished over $100,000 in funds and handled packing, shipping, and selling; all farming bills were paid from an L & D Farms account funded by the appellant, and any profits remaining after expenses were split equally between Lytton and the appellant. Lytton was responsible for planting, raising, and delivering the tomatoes to the appellant's warehouse, while the appellant managed the financial account through its manager as sole signatory. During trial, the appellee settled with and released all other defendants, leaving only Florida Tomato Packers in the case.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to let the jury find that Florida Tomato Packers and Lytton were in a partnership and/or joint venture, making Florida Tomato Packers liable for the tort committed in the farming operation. The court also considered whether releasing the active tortfeasor and other defendants released Florida Tomato Packers from liability, and whether the trial court erred in denying directed-verdict-type motions and a new trial.

Rule

A joint venture may be implied from the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances; no formal written agreement is required. To create a joint venture relationship, Florida law requires: (1) a community of interest in a common purpose, (2) joint control or a right of control, (3) a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, (4) a right to share profits, and (5) a duty to share losses; loss sharing is implied as a matter of law where one party supplies labor, experience, and skill and the other supplies capital. Participants in a joint venture are each liable for torts of the other or of servants of the joint undertaking committed within the course and scope of the undertaking, and section 768.041 applies to all tortfeasors, including vicarious tortfeasors.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Immokalee, Florida, Rosa Vega grows peppers on leased land. Gulf Lantern Produce, a fictional packing company based in Tampa, advances all operating funds, pays vendors from an account its field manager alone can sign on, handles packing and sales, and splits net profits 50/50 with Rosa, but the parties never signed a written agreement.

If a delivery truck driven by Rosa's farm worker injures a pedestrian while transporting peppers to the packing shed, what is the strongest argument that Gulf Lantern may be vicariously liable?

Explanation. Florida law allows a joint venture contract to be implied from conduct and circumstances. Here, the common enterprise, funding structure, control over the account, marketing role, and equal profit sharing furnish evidence of a joint venture, making Gulf Lantern potentially liable for torts committed within the undertaking's scope. The majority did not hold that financing alone, profit sharing alone, or a mere marketing relationship automatically creates liability.