EVELIO CASAS, APPELLANT,
v.
MIGUEL F. MOYA, 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.
In this guest statute case, the Florida Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict for the defendant driver and remanded for trial, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether the plaintiff paid for transportation sufficient to establish a contractual relationship rather than merely a guest relationship, and whether the driver's conduct constituted gross negligence.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine whether a contractual relationship existed based on the payment of $1.00 per day and that there was sufficient evidence regarding the question of whether the negligence was ordinary or gross negligence, requiring the case to be submitted to the jury rather than resolved by directed verdict.
“A motion for a directed verdict admits for the purposes of the motion, not only the facts shown by the evidence but also every reasonable inference and intendment deducible from the evidence favorable to the party moved against”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating a directed verdict motion, requiring all inferences to favor the non-moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was injured as a passenger in defendant's automobile while commuting from Belle Glade to West Palm Beach, Florida. Plaintiff paid $1.00 per …
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 Guest Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a directed verdict entered in favor of the defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case.
The facts generally are these. The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident at which time plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. Both parties reside in West Palm Beach, Florida, and commute to Belle Glade to work. The plaintiff was obligated to contribute $1.00 per day, or $7.00 per week, in order to ride in the defendant’s automobile. There was another passenger in the automobile, Mr. Rodriguez, who would have been, but for the accident, paying for his transportation in a fashion and amount similar to the plaintiff. The accident occurred in the morning on the return trip to West Palm Beach. The defendant had become nauseated by gasoline fumes from his car. The defendant, testifying as an adverse witness, related that he had been feeling the fumes on another occasion. The defendant further testified that, when he felt himself become nauseated, he slowed down to about 35 m. p. h. and attempted to stick his head out of the window, however, forgot that the window was-closed and struck his face against the glass, breaking his eye glasses, causing him to-lose control of his car and go over the center line into the oncoming lane of traffic where his car collided with an automobile driven by one Frederick Brown, who is not involved on this appeal.
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained. Defendant answered denying negligence and asserting the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and joint venture whereby plaintiff’s negligence was imputed to the defendant.
The trial court entered an order denying appellee’s motion for summary judgment and appellant’s cross motion for summary *62judgment. At conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, before a jury, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the grounds that plaintiff had not established gross negligence within the purview of the Guest Statute, F.S.A. § 320.59, and that the evidence failed to establish payment for transportation sufficient to remove the case from the Guest Statute.
A motion for a directed verdict admits for the purposes of the motion, not only the facts shown by the evidence but also every reasonable inference and intendment deducible from the evidence favorable to the party moved against, 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 91.
We here hold that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of whether a contractual relationship existed between the parties as opposed to whether or not the transportation was for ■the purpose of companionship, pleasure, social amenities, hospitality and the like, ■etc.
The case of Perdue v. Watson, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 840, correctly delineates the law, and that case and the instant case are distinguished from the cases of McDougald v. Couey, 1942, 150 Fla. 748, 9 So.2d 187; Yokom v. Rodriguez, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 446; Sullivan v. Stock, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 507; and Minnick v. Keene, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 172. See also Gibson v. Hageman, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 894.
We further hold that the question here was not whether or not the jury would have found that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence; the question clearly is whether or not, upon the evidence submitted, the jury could have so found.
There was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury on the question of whether the negligence was ordinary or gross. Goodis v. Finkelstein, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 600; Carraway v. Revell Motor Co., Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 16; Bridges v. Speer, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 679.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDREWS, Acting C, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Papp v. Guillermina Rivero Morales, 254 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…lding of the jury was against the manifest weight of the evidence but this point is not assigned or argued. We do not feel that the trial judge can be faulted for having left the decision to the jury under the holding in Casas v. Moya, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 60; McNulty v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla.App.1966, 198 So. 2d 876. Affirmed.…
-
Pooton v. Berutich, 199 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…are unable to find any subsequent Florida decisions that reach the conclusion which appellant sets forth. The instant case is clearly distinguishable from the cases of Gibson v. Hageman, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 894 and Casas v. Moya, Fla.App. 1966, 193 So. 2d 60. We feel the subsequent Supreme Court case of Yokom v. Rodriguez, Fla.1949, 41 So. 2d 446, more clearly sets out the correct test involved. In the Yokom case the court held that a woman passenger who impor [*143] tuned a male acquaintance to take h…
-
Moya v. Casas, 201 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 193 So. 2d 60.…
Authorities Cited
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- Bergen v. Wyett Shultz, 79 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)
- Sullivan v. Stock, 98 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Bridges v. Speer, 79 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)
- Yokom v. Rodriguez, 41 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1949)
- Quitman McDougald v. Couey, 150 Fla. 748 (Fla. 1942)
- Goodis v. Finkelstein, 174 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Mrs. William O. Perdue and William O. Perdue, Jr. v. Watson, 144 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Minnick v. Keene, 139 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Gibson v. Hageman, 179 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)