REED
v.
STORR
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.
In consolidated cases arising from an automobile collision, the court determined whether the defendant's car was being operated with the defendant's knowledge and consent at the time of the accident. The court found that despite one prior authorized use and several unauthorized uses, the specific accident involved unauthorized use without express or implied consent.
The court found that the facts did not warrant a finding that the car was driven with the defendant's knowledge or consent, express or implied, at the time of the accident. The court therefore ruled in favor of the defendant on the issue of knowledge and consent.
“By a stipulation of counsel, the parties offered all of their evidence on the sole issue as to whether or not the defendant's automobile was being driven with his knowledge and consent at the time of the collision.”
Establishes the limited issue the court agreed to decide first
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant's car was driven by another person at the time of the collision. On one prior occasion, this driver had used the car with the defendant'…
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 Express Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
These consolidated cases were duly tried by the court. By a stipulation of counsel, the parties offered all of their evidence on the sole issue as to whether or not the defendant’s automobile was being driven with his knowledge and consent at the time of the collision. It was agreed that the court shall thereupon make a determination of this issue, and if favorable to the plaintiffs, other evidence would be presented on the matter of negligence and damages, and if not favorable to the plaintiffs, a final judgment would be entered. It was further agreed, however, that in the event of a motion for a new trial, or such judgment be reversed, then the parties should have an opportunity to present evidence on the remaining issues of the cause.
The undisputed, evidence offered by both parties shows that the driver of the defendant’s car at the time of the collision, had on one previous occasion, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, driven the car to a nearby community so this defendant could obtain certain medical services. After the trip the car was parked adjoining the house of the defendant, and the key left in the car.
*143It further appears that this driver did on several other occasions, drive the car of the defendant about West Palm Beach — but without any knowledge or consent of the defendant. The evidence also discloses that at the time of the accident which formed a basis of this suit, the driver of defendant’s car was operating the car without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, either express or implied, unless such implied consent can be created upon the evidence adduced.
As I view the law, the facts as above outlined do not warrant a finding that the' car at the time of the accident was driven with the consent or knowledge, express or implied, of the defendant.
Thereupon, it is ordered that on the issue of knowledge and consent of the defendant, the court finds for the defendant; that, subject to the stipulations above stated, the plaintiffs take nothing • by their complaints, and that the defendants go hence without day; all with costs taxed against the plaintiffs.