VICTOR STEPHEN D/B/A VICTORIA LINE, APPELLANT,
v.
L. P. EVANS MOTORS OF WEST PALM BEACH, INC. AND PROPRIETORS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A shipping company was held liable for negligence per se under Florida statute when it shipped a stolen Mercedes Benz to Haiti without obtaining a certificate of title. The court affirmed summary judgment against the shipping line, holding that the statute's protective purpose extended to preventing losses from thefts that occurred before the vehicle reached the shipper.
The court held that the shipping company's failure to obtain a certificate of title constituted negligence per se because the statute was enacted to protect vehicle owners from loss of their goods. The defendant's acts directly and in natural and continuous sequence produced the damage, and the statute's protective purpose presupposes that theft may occur before the vehicle reaches the shipper, so the theft did not preclude liability.
[1] A shipping company's failure to obtain a certificate of right of possession for a vehicle, as required by statute, constitutes negligence per se when the statute is desig…
[2] A statutory duty imposed to prevent the shipment of stolen vehicles out of state applies even when the theft occurred prior to the vehicle's presentment to the shipping c…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because we find that the statute was enacted to protect owners of vehicles from the loss of their goods, we hold that it was negligence per se not to abide by the statute.”
Establishes the court's key holding that statutory violation constitutes negligence per se based on the statute's protective purpose.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo thieves obtained a test drive of a used Mercedes Benz from Evans Motors under the pretense of purchasing it, overpowered the sales representative,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Negligence Per Se cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Under the guise of purchasing a used Mercedes Benz from L. P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach (Evans), two thieves were given a test drive at which time they overpowered the sales representative and stole the vehicle. Later, a third party shipped the same vehicle1 to Haiti aboard the defendant’s shipping line. Evans, joined by his insurer, commenced the present action on the theory that the defendant’s failure to obtain a certificate of right of possession as required by Section 319.36, Florida Statutes (1979) imposed liability upon the shipping line for the loss of the vehicle. From an adverse summary judgment, the shipping line appeals. We affirm.
Unquestionably, Section 319.36, supra, imposed a duty upon the defendant to obtain a certificate of possession of title. Because we find that the statute was enacted to protect owners of vehicles from the loss of their goods,2 we hold that it was negligence per se not to abide by the statute. See deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973). We reject the defendant’s argument that its activities were only a remote cause of the plaintiff’s damages. To the contrary, we find that the defendant’s acts directly and in natural and continuous sequence produced the damage incurred by the plaintiff. See Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 5.1(a). The duty imposed on the defendant by Section 319.36, supra, presupposes a theft of the vehicle prior to its presentment at the shipping line. It cannot be argued then, that that very theft precluded the defendant’s liability.
Consequently, we find that the summary judgment must be affirmed.
. We find that appellant’s contention that there was an issue of fact as to the identity of the vehicle because of an alleged discrepancy in the serial numbers to be without merit.
. The statute as originally enacted by Chapter 70-289, Section 1, Laws of Florida, clearly expressed this result. It provided:
(1) The legislature of Florida hereby finds that larceny of motor vehicles has become a widespread criminal activity in this state, such activity being perpetrated not only by individuals but also by organized groups who consider theft of motor vehicles to be a lucrative everday business. The enforcement of larceny statutes and recovery of stolen motor vehicles has been rendered a monumental task because of the ease with which such vehicles may be shipped out of the state to places where no certificate of title is required for their sale or transfer. The legislature declares that it is in the strong public interest of this state that its police power be exercised in order to protect motor vehicle owners and to aid law enforcement officers by rendering it extremely difficult for a person to transport a stolen motor vehicle out of this state via ship.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Summit Chase Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Protean Invs., Inc., 421 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…, I would hold that what amounted to the [*566] imposition of a fine,4 which should be assessed only for a willful and clear-cut violation of an order of court, was unwarranted and a plain abuse of discretion. . E.g., Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 417 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Herrell v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 411 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Techno Industrial Corp. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 410 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Maqueira v. Almas, 409 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Santuoso v. McGrath…
-
Abel Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…at the trial court abused its discretion by entering a dismissal where the plaintiffs were at sea when the trial court granted its discovery order and were therefore unavailable to be re-noticed for their depositions); Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 417 So. 2d 778, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint was too drastic a remedy where plaintiff “had difficulty getting to the United States from Jamaica, the deposition was set after the cut-off date for completing discovery, a…
-
Ivaran Lines, Inc. v. Mauricio Waicman & Allstate Ins. Co., 461 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…citing: Sloan v. Coit International, Inc., 292 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1974); DeJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973); Tamiami Gun Shop v. Klein, 116 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1959); Stephen v. L.P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach, Inc., 417 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Concord Florida, Inc. v. Lewin, 341 So. 2d 242, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 946 (Fla.1977). The trial judge agreed, ruling that the administrative failure of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Transition Rule 15, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)