ALONZO L. THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAUDE NEWSOME, 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.
Defendant appealed a negligence judgment, arguing the plaintiff was a guest covered by Florida's guest statute, which bars recovery absent gross negligence. The court held that the plaintiff remained a guest during the trailer-hitching operation as part of defendant's gratuitous transportation service, and reversed the judgment.
The guest-host relationship had been created and continued through the trailer-hitching operation, which was an integral step in the gratuitous homeward journey defendant had undertaken. Therefore, the guest statute applied and ordinary negligence was insufficient; the judgment was reversed and remanded to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint or file a new action alleging gross negligence.
“the existence of a guest-host relationship does not depend solely on the physical position of the plaintiff at the moment of accident. Rather the test is whether or not the defendant's allegedly negligent act was performed in the course of carrying out the gratuitous undertaking that he had assumed.”
States the governing legal standard from Fishback v. Yale for determining when a guest-host relationship exists.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Thomas invited plaintiff Newsome and two others on a fishing trip, providing his car to tow their boat and trailer. After fishing, the group…
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 Gratuitous Undertaking cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Alonzo L. Thomas, appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Claude Newsome. We reverse.
Plaintiff, defendant, and two other men went on a fishing trip ' using defendant’s car and pulling a boat and trailer. The group arrived at their destination, launched the boat, and fished for several hours, after which they returned in the boat to the launching ramp. Plaintiff and the two other men moved the trailer into position on the ramp by hand and then loaded the boat. Defendant backed his car down the ramp and plaintiff and his companions attempted to attach the trailer to the hitch. Defendant put his car in first gear and got out, apparently to render any needed assistance in the hitching operation. The car then slid backward down the ramp, pinning plaintiff against a post and thereby injuring him.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant alleging ordinary negligence. Defendant raised the guest statute, F.S. Section 320.-59, F.S.A. 1965, in defense. The trial court ruled the guest statute inapplicable and plaintiff won a jury verdict. Defendant has appealed contending that plaintiff was a guest and that, inasmuch as gross negligence was not alleged, the trial court should have granted him summary judgment.
This case presents a problem in determining when a guest-host relationship begins or resumes after it has been interrupted. The Supreme Court has furnished a guideline in this area. In Fishback v. Yale, Fla. 1955, 85 So.2d 142, the court decreed that the existence of a guest-host relationship does not depend solely on the physical position of the plaintiff at the moment of accident. Rather the test is whether or not the defendant’s allegedly negligent act was performed in the course of carrying out the gratuitous undertaking that he had assumed. This rule has subsequently been applied in several factual settings. See Fleming v. Smart, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 748; La Rue v. Hoffman, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 373; Kaplan v. Taub, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 882.
It appears to us that the operation of hitching the trailer was an integral step in carrying out defendant’s gratuitous undertaking of providing round-trip transportation for the fishing party. Coupling the boat and trailer to the car was an essential part of the homeward journey as would be plaintiff’s entry into the car, Kaplan v. Taub, supra; his exit therefrom, La Rue v. Hoffman, supra; or his removal *48of an obstacle from the auto’s path, Fishback v. Yale, supra.
Accordingly, we hold that at the time of the accident plaintiff and defendant were acting in pursuance of an impending homeward journey which was a gratuitous undertaking of defendant. A guest-host relationship had been created and the guest statute applied. The judgment therefore is reversed and remanded but without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to either amend his complaint or file a new action. Section 95.06, F.S. (1967); Livingston v. Malever, 1931, 103 Fla. 200, 137 So. 113; Levitt v. Axelson, 1931, 102 Fla. 233, 135 So. 553; City of Orlando v. Murphy, 5 Cir. 1938, 94 F.2d 426.
WALDEN, C. J., and TEDDER, GEORGE W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Livingston v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1931)
- Montverde Dev. Corp. v. Howey-in-the-Hills, 102 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)
- Levitt v. Ivar Axelson, 102 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)
- Fishback v. Yale, 85 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1955)
- City of Orlando v. Murphy, 94 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1938)
- Kaplan v. Taub, 104 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- LA RUE v. Hoffman, 109 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Fleming v. Eldridge Smart, 153 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)