MARTHA M. PORTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for a street car company in a negligence action brought by an automobile passenger injured in a collision. The Court held that a passenger cannot be charged with the negligence of the automobile operator when she had no control over the vehicle or driver.
A passenger in an automobile cannot be charged with the negligence of the chauffeur or operator when the passenger had no authority or control over the machine or driver. The negligence of the chauffeur is not imputable to a passenger riding in the vehicle.
“The negligence of a chauffeur in driving an automobile is not in general imputable to a person riding in the automobile, but having no authority or control over the machine or the driver.”
Establishes the core holding that a passenger cannot be held liable for the operator's negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartha M. Porter was riding as a passenger in an automobile that collided with a street car operated by Jacksonville Electric Company on a public high…
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 Passenger Status cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
The plaintiff in error brought an action to recover damages for injuries received in a collision on a public highway between an automobile in which she was riding as a passenger and a street car of the defendant company. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and also several special pleas averring in effect that neither the automobile nor the chauffeur was registered as required by the statute; that defendant did not discover the peril of the plaintiff until it was too late for defendant to avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary and reasonable diligence; and that the operator of the machine negligently contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. A demurrer to the special pleas was overruled. By replication the plaintiff alleged that she was a passenger in the automobile and had no control over the vehicle or its driver and no duty in the registration of the automobile or the chauffeur. A demurrer to this replication was sustained, and the plaintiff not desiring to further plead, judgment was rendered for the defendant company, and the plaintiff took writ of error. The averment in one of the special pleas that defendant did not discover the peril of the plaintiff in time to avoid the accident is covered by the plea of not guilty. On the authority of Atlantic Coast Line Ry. v. Weir, 63 Fla. 69, 58 South. Rep. 641, the averments of the pleas as to the operation of the automobile on the public highway without a license for the machine or the chauffeur are not a defense to this action. The averment of a special plea that the operator of the machine by his negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, is not in view of the statute, (Secs. 3148-9, Gen. Stats.) a full defense; and the allegations of the replication that the plaintiff was a passenger in the automobile and had no interest in or control over the automobile or the driver thereof, was a sufficient reply to the averments of the pleas that the negligence of the operator of the automobile contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, since on the pleadings it does not appear that negligence of the operator in driving the automobile may be imputed to the plaintiff.
The negligence of a chauffeur in driving an automobile is not in general imputable to a person riding in the automobile, but having no authority or control over the machine or the driver. Dale v. Denver City T. Co., 178 Fed. Rep. 787, 19 Ann. Cas. 1223 and notes; Cotton v. Willmar & S. F. Ry. Co. 99 Minn. 366, 109 N. W. Rep. 835, 9 Ann. Cas. 935; Shultz v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 193 Mass. 309, 79 N. E. Rep. 873, 9 Ann. Cas. 402; Colorado & S. R. Co. v. Thomas, 33 Colo. 517, 81 Pac. Rep. 801, 3 Ann. Cas. 700; Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 366, 6 Sup. Ct Rep. 391. See also note to St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co. v. McFall, 5 Ann. Cas. 163, and note in Christy v. Elliott, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 215.
The judgment is reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Gertrude M. Watson, 94 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1927)…ordinary care to avoid injury, that is, such care as an ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances. But the doctrine of imputed negligence has received small recognition in this jurisdiction. Porter v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 64 Fla. 409, 60 So. 188; Tampa Electric Co. v. Bazemore, 85 Fla. 164, 96 So. 297. Although the plaintiff was not under the evidence chargeable with the contributory negligence of her husband, yet if he was negligent in driving the automobile upon the track in…
-
Orefice v. Albert, 237 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1970)…o. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 400, 43 So. 318 (1907). It has also been held that the negligence of an automobile operator may not be imputed to a passenger, who has no authority or control over the machine or the driver. Porter v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 64 Fla. 409, 60 So. 188 (1912). In applying our law to the case sub judice, we conclude that the estate and survivor of the minor Michael Betz appear to have a cause of action for negligence; that the negligence of the father, who was pilot and co-owner, may n…
-
Raphael Klepper v. Breslin, 83 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1955)…of authority.” (Italics -added) Seaboard Air Line R. v. Watson, 94 Fla. 571, 113 So. 716, 719; De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So. 2d 215. Likewise, negligence of a driver is not imputed to passenger of a cár. Porter v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 64 Fla. 409, 60 So. 188. Further, in this state, the negligence of a parent cannot be imputed to a child in his tort action for damages. Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 So. 183, 7 Ann.Cas. 241. (Stating that the rule is in accord with “the w…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Little v. Hackett, 116 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1886)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Weir, 63 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1912)