PALM BEACH COUNTY OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
CARL HANNON, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER, WILL HANNON, 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.
Palm Beach County Oil Company appealed a judgment for personal injuries against it after a minor plaintiff's motorcycle collided with the company's unlit parked truck on a highway. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding insufficient evidence to connect the truck to the defendant or establish who parked it.
The judgment for the plaintiff must be reversed because the evidence failed to establish critical facts: it did not show who parked the truck, who owned the truck, or any connection between the truck and the defendant company.
“The evidence as presented by the bill of exceptions included in the record fails to show who parked the truck where it was parked. It fails to show who was the owner of the truck. It fails to show any connection between the truck and the defendant.”
The court's primary basis for reversal—the complete absence of evidence establishing the defendant's ownership or responsibility for the truck.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 16, 1925, at approximately 8:00 P.M., a motor-driven gas tank truck was parked on the Dixie Highway in Palm Beach County with all four wh…
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 Vicarious Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case defendant in error sued plaintiff in error for personal injuries alleged to have been sus tained by the wrongful act of tlie defendant in tlie court below.
The declaration was in two counts. The first was substantially, as follows:
‘That defendant was on the 16th day of September, 1925, possessed of and operating a motor driven gas tank truck of great weight, power and size, and said defendant was on said date, by its servant and employee, driving and conducting said truck South upon Dixie Highway, a hard surfaced public road in Palm Beach County, Florida, at and just north of the city limits of the City of West Palm Beach, Florida, where the said Dixie Highway is. narrow. That the defendant, at about eight o’clock P. M., on said date, acting by and through its servant and employee aforesaid, who was then and there acting within the line and scope of his said employment, did then and there carelessly and negligently park and leave said truck standing upon said Dixie Highway, with all four wheels on said hard surfacing of said public road and without any tail or rear light, or other light, lights or signal of any kind or character to warn or apprise the plaintiff or other traveler of the presence of such truck on said highway; that the plaintiff was lawfully traveling south on said Dixie Highway, aforesaid, after dark, *to-wit: about eight o’clock P. M. on said date upon a motorcycle which the plaintiff was then and there operating and riding, that plaintiff had proper lights burning on the said motorcycle, but because of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant aforesaid, plaintiff’s motorcycle ran into and collided with the said truck of defendant left as aforesaid. ’
Damages are claimed for permanent injuries. The Second Count is the same as the first, except that it claims damages for injury to the motorcycle. This count was abandoned at the trial.
There were three pleas. The first was, “that it is not guilty.” Second, “that it denies that plaintiff had proper lights burning on said motorcycle as alleged in the declaration.” Third, “that the negligence of the said Carl Hannon was the sole cause of the injury. ’ ’
Upon issue joined on these pleas trial was had. The evidence as presented by the bill of exceptions included in the record fails to show who parked the truck where it was parked. It fails to show who was the owner of the truck. It fails to show any connection between the truck and the defendant. Judgment was in favor of the plaintiff and for the reasons stated should be reversed under authority of the opinion in the case of Varnes v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 80 Fla. 624, 86 So. R. 433. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953)…191] nothing unusual about the crossing. It was in a rural section and the train was in plain view at all times. It had the right-of-way. See Southern Railway Co. v. Mann, 91 Fla. 948, 108 So. 889; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Watkins, 97 Fla. 350, 121 So. 95; Roberts v. Powell, 137 Fla. 159, 187 So. 766. By the exercise of the slightest attention to his surroundings, the driver of the truck could have seen the approaching danger and permitted the train to pass without event. It is such mental lethargy…
-
Powell v. Gary, 146 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1941)…en the injury occurred. And when the railroad company introduces substantial evidence to this effect, the statutory presumption of fact disappears. See Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 So. 618; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Watkins, 97 Fla. 350, 121 So. 95; Tampa Electric Co. v. [*338] McCulloch, 115 Fla. 680, 156 So. 259; Powell v. Jackson Grain Co., 134 Fla. 596, 184 So. 492. The probative effect of the evidence is to be determined by the jury, subject to authorized appellate review. Several witnes…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 104 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1932)…ies. Section 7052 (4965) C. G. L.; S. A. L. Ry. v. Callan, 73 Fla. 688, 74 So. 799; Germak v. F. E. C. Ry. Co., supra. S. A. L. Ry. v. Tilghman, 237 U. S. 499; Dina v. S. A. L. Ry., 90 Fla. 558, 106 So. 416; A. C. L. Ry. Co. v. Watkins, 97 Fla. 350, 121 So. 95. In an action against a railroad company for damages done by the running of its trains, the defendant may, under the general issue of not guilty, prove that the alleged injury was caused solely by the negligence of the party injured, or that the de…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Varnes v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 80 Fla. 624 (Fla. 1920)