MARTHA KRASNOSKY, JOHN E. KRASNOSKY, JR., AND SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDNA M. MEREDITH, APPELLEE
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.
This case involves a conflict of laws dispute arising from a one-car accident in Georgia involving Florida residents and a Florida-issued insurance policy. The trial court initially considered applying Georgia law but ultimately applied Florida law, which has a more significant relationship to the parties and the dispute.
Florida law applies to this case under the 'significant relationships test' because Florida has a more significant relationship to the determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties than Georgia, despite the accident occurring in Georgia.
[1] When determining the applicable law in a tort action, courts may apply the "significant relationships test" to ascertain which jurisdiction has the most substantial conne…
[2] Under the "significant relationships test," a jurisdiction may have a more significant relationship to a tort action when the parties are residents of that jurisdiction,…
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“the only relationship of Georgia to the personal injury action is the mere 'happenstance' of the automobile coming into contact with a Georgia tree located six miles from the Florida state line”
Establishes that Georgia's connection to the case is minimal and incidental, supporting application of Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo Florida residents were traveling in Georgia, approximately six miles from the Florida-Georgia border, when their automobile left the highway and c…
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 Significant Relationship Test cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The present suit arose from a one-car accident in Georgia, occurring approximate ly six miles from the Georgia-Florida border. The two occupants of the automobile were both residents of Florida and the insurance policy was issued in Florida by the appellant South Carolina Insurance Company, a company licensed to do business in Florida. The accident occurred en route to Florida from a visit with relatives south of Atlanta, when the automobile left the highway and collided with a tree. The driver, Jessie Sasser, died ten days after the accident as a result of injuries sustained therein. The passenger, Edna M. Meredith, suffered extensive injuries, recovery for which prompted the cause of action brought against the Krasnoskys as personal representatives of the estate of Jessie Sasser, and South Carolina Insurance Company, Mr. Sasser’s liability insurance carrier. During the trial, the court was presented a motion for directed verdict in which it was requested to hold Georgia law applicable and accordingly, plaintiff having failed to demonstrate gross negligence, to find for the estate of Jessie Sasser. The trial court reserved decision on the motion and submitted a special verdict to the jury requesting the jurors to determine whether Mr. Sasser had been guilty of simple negligence or gross negligence; the jury returned a verdict of simple negligence.
In the post-trial order, the court ruled that the law of Florida should be applied rather than the law of Georgia, Florida’s law requiring a showing of only simple negligence on the part of a host driver for a guest passenger to recover. Applying Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Company, 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1980), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Olsen, 406 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1981), the trial court held that, “under the particular facts of this case ... the State of Florida has a more significant relationship to the determination of the rights and the liabilities of the parties than does the State of Georgia.” We affirm.
The “significant relationships test” set forth in Bishop and Olsen mitigates in favor of application of Florida law, as the only relationship of Georgia to the personal injury action is the mere “happenstance” of the automobile coming into contact with a Georgia tree located six miles from the Florida state line. Bishop at 1000. On the other hand, the trip was to begin and end in Florida, plaintiff and defendants are either Florida residents or licensed to do business in Florida, and the host-guest relationship between the parties arose in Florida. Under those circumstances, the flexibility of the Restatement’s “significant relationships test” clearly serves to further the ends of justice.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stallworth v. Hospitality Rentals, Inc., 515 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…courts applying the Restatement test have held that Florida law governs certain issues in the case even though the automobile accident, and thus the negligent conduct of the driver, occurred in a state other than Florida. See Krasnosky v. Meredith, 447 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (applying Florida law to determine driver’s liability based on host-guest relationship which arose between the passenger and driver in Florida, since the “only relationship of Georgia to the personal injury action is the mere ‘ha…1 / 2
-
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Rosenberger, 699 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…a.1984); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., 567 So. 2d 918, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1991); Stallworth v. Hospitality Rentals, Inc., 515 So. 2d 413, 416-417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Krasnosky v. Meredith, 447 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984); Harris v. Berkowitz, 433 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Thus, Florida’s law would not impinge upon or offend the needs promoted by Montana law. See Harris, 433 So. 2d at 613; Wal-Mart Sto…
-
Crowell v. Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, Inc., 700 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…t state. Florida decisions have repeatedly held that the happenstance of an accident’s occurrence in another state does not create significant contacts for the purpose of applying that state’s law in a conflict of law dispute. Krasnosky v. Meredith, 447 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984). The contacts alleged to create a significant relationship must be viewed with respect to the issue under consideration. Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145(2) (1971); Department Of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Althea G. Bishop and William J. Bishop, Sr. v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 406 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1981)