CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MAGGIE SOPER, APPELLEE
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Carnival Cruise Lines appeals from the dismissal of its claim for common law indemnity against Maggie Soper arising from the accident involved in Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Levalley, 786 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Because, as demonstrated in that opinion, Carnival cannot be held vicariously liable in this case for Soper’s negligence, we agree that there is no basis for the indemnity claim. Compare Grand Union Co. v. Prudential Bldg. Maint. Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Olin’s Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Continental Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cillo v. State, 849 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…the standard of review for the trial court’s application of the law to its factual findings is de novo, but a reviewing court must defer to the factual findings of the trial court that are supported by competent, substantial evidence. State v. C.F., 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A trial court ruling regarding the voluntary nature of a statement comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, and it cannot be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Sawyer, 561 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2…
-
State v. Weiss, 935 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…review applied to orders denying a motion to suppress is mixed: the court’s factual findings are accorded deference and will be upheld if supported by competent, substantial evidence; legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. State v. C.F., 798 So. 2d 751, 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Harris v. State, 761 So. 2d 1186, 1187-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (stating that orders denying suppression of evidence are reviewed de novo; factual findings of the lower court are reviewed for competent, substantial e…
-
Evans v. State, 911 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…. Our deference to the trial court in such regard does not, however, conclude our examination. Such circumstance does not by itself support a determination that the interrogation was not conducted in a custodial setting. For example, State v. C.F., 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and Killian v. State, 761 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), both involved situations where in-home confessions were suppressed because the defendants’ freedom was significantly restrained. The court’s order in the case at bar deny…
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
- Nelson v. City of Miami, 194 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1966)
- Olin's Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Cont'l Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Levalley, 786 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Harvey v. Rogers, 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- The Grand Union Co. v. Prudential Bldg. Maint. Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)