Case Name: ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Frank C. GIRARDEAU, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-09-24
Citations: 301 So. 2d 38
Docket Number: No. T-451
Parties: ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Frank C. GIRARDEAU, Appellee.
Judges: JOHNSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 301
Pages: 38–42

Head Matter:
ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Frank C. GIRARDEAU, Appellee.
No. T-451.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 24, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1974.
Harold B. Wahl of Loftin &' Wahl, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Ralph Roberts of Roberts & Roberts, Jacksonville, for appellee.

Opinion:
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
Appellant Orkin brings this appeal from a final judgment enjoining appellee Girar-deau from engaging in the pest control business in the San Jose area of the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The salient point raised by Orkin is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in limiting to the San Jose portion of the City of Jacksonville the area in which Girar-deau was enjoined from competing with Orkin.
Orkin is engaged in the pest control business in the Jacksonville trade area which Orkin defines as encompassing Du-val, Nassau, Clay, St. Johns and Baker Counties and ten miles therefrom. Girar-deau was employed by Orkin's Jacksonville office on September 1, 1970, as a serviceman. Orkin's initial training of Girardeau consisted of one four-hour course which was primarily related to sales and for a week or so Girardeau rode with other servicemen who showed him the ropes. In addition, Girardeau took two tests which Orkin considers a part of its training. According to Girardeau, Orkin gave him the answers to the questions on the test and told him not to make a perfect score. Last Girardeau was given an Orkin Serviceman Guide which, after numerous pages on how to collect bills and greet customers, contains two pages in the back listing various chemicals used for pest control. According to Girardeau most of his knowledge on pest control was learned from material he purchased himself.
On December 24, 1970 (approximately four months after being employed), Orkin presented Girardeau with an employment contract which he was to either sign or be "out on the streets". This contract provided that Girardeau, for a two-year period of time after he terminated his employment with Orkin, would not engage in the pest control business in Duval, Nassau, Clay, St. Johns or Baker Counties. Girar-deau received no increase in compensation as consideration for signing this contract.
The parties are in agreement that during Girardeau's employment with Orkin he was assigned exclusively by Orkin to the San Jose area of the City of Jacksonville. The only exception to this was the initial week or So of training and some 10, 12 or IS times when Girardeau was called upon by Orkin to make emergency trips to other parts of the Jacksonville trade area. Gir-ardeau did not have the list of Orkin's customers nor was there evidence that he was familiar with the pricing arrangement or other agreements Orkin had with its customers. On February 1, 1973, Girar-deau terminated his employment with Or-kin. Thereafter, he became employed by Atlas Exterminating Company as a serviceman in the Jacksonville area. Orkin instituted the instant suit to enjoin Girar-deau, pursuant to his contract of employment, from engaging in the pest control business in Duval, Nassau, Clay, St. Johns and Baker Counties. The trial judge upheld the non-competitive agreement but limited its applicable area to the San Jose portion of the City of Jacksonville. We agree with the trial judge's determination.
At common law contracts which hindered a man's right to follow his calling were considered to be against the public policy and thus void. In 1953 the legislature modified the common law to the extent that contracts which restrained an employee from engaging in an occupation similar to that pursued by his former employer may now be enforced, provided the contract embraces a reasonably limited time and area. Where the area covered by the contract is unreasonable, the statute contemplates that the trial judge has juris diction to determine in his sound discretion what would be a reasonable area and to, in his discretion, enforce the covenant not to compete in the limited area.
' What is a reasonable area is a factual matter to be determined in each case. Under the facts of this case, we find that the trial judge was most correct in exercising his discretion. Girardeau, while an employee of Orkin, never worked outside the San Jose area except on some very few times when, at Orkin's request, he made emergency calls to other areas. The work Girardeau performed for Orkin was that of a serviceman for which he received from Orkin little training. Under the facts of this case, to prohibit Girardeau from engaging in any phase of the pest control business in Duval, Nassau, Clay, St. Johns and Baker Counties would be unconscionable and violate Florida Statute 542.12.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
JOHNSON, J., concurs.
McCORD, J., dissents.
. The trial judge found that information on pest control is available to the general public through the public library and the United States Government.
. Girardeau's supervisor admitted that the most Girardeau served any of Orkin's customers outside of the San .Tose area was 10, 12 or 15 times.
. Even though in the contract not to compete Girardeau acknowledges that he has received a list of Orkin's customers, he in fact did not.
. Standard Newspaper, Inc. v. Woods, 110 So.2d 397 (Fla.1959).
. Florida Statute 542.12.
. Flammer v. Patton, 245 So.2d 854 (Fla.1971) ; Kofoed Public Relations Assn., Inc. v. Mullins, 257 So.2d 603 (Fla.App. 4th 1972) ; and Kenco Chemical & Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla.App. 1st 1973).
. Orkin argues that the contract involved in the instant litigation has previously been held valid, and thus that in this case it is per se valid as written. Orkin v. Capelouto, 183 So.2d 532 (Fla.1966).