EDWARD FELTS, APPELLANT,
v.
LEO D. EVANS, 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 negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the evidence established the plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger rather than a guest passenger, and therefore the trial court properly withdrew the gross negligence defense from the jury's consideration.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to raise a jury question on whether plaintiff was a guest passenger. The evidence established as a matter of law that plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger, not a guest passenger sharing expenses, and therefore the trial court properly withdrew the guest passenger defense and granted a directed verdict on the gross negligence issue.
“it is susceptible of the single conclusion that at the time of his injuries plaintiff was riding as a fare-paying passenger in the vehicle owned by appellant and operated with his knowledge and consent”
Establishes that the evidence proved plaintiff's status as a fare-paying passenger as a matter of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Evans owned and operated a motor vehicle in which plaintiff Felts was injured. At trial, Evans claimed Felts was a guest passenger, which wo…
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 Passenger Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks reversal of a final judgment in favor of plaintiff for damages resulting from injuries arising out of the negligent operation of defendant’s motor vehicle. The sole question presented for decision challenges the trial court’s rulings which withdrew from the jury’s consideration the defense which alleged that plaintiff was a guest passenger in defendant’s vehicle whose injuries were not caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of defendant or the operator of his vehicle, and which granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of gross negligence made at the close of the evidence.1
Briefly stated, it is appellant’s position that the evidence, and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, raised jury questions as to whether plaintiff was a guest passenger riding in defendant’s vehicle at the time of his injury, and if so, whether the vehicle was being operated in a grossly negligent or willful and wanton manner which proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. If appellant’s contention is correct, it would follow that the court erred in striking his defenses and withdrawing from the jury the issue of gross negligence.2
We have carefully reviewed the testimony adduced at the trial and agree with the trial court that it is susceptible of the single conclusion that at the time of his injuries plaintiff was riding as a fare-paying passenger in the vehicle owned by appellant and operated with his knowledge and consent. The jury could not reasonably have found from the evidence that plaintiff’s presence in defendant’s vehicle was in pursuance of an agreement by which plaintiff was sharing the expenses of a trip in which he, defendant, and other passengers were jointly engaged for their mutual pleasure, advantage, and companionship. It is our conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to raise a jury question on the issue of whether plaintiff was a guest passenger at the time he received his injuries on which his cause of action is based.3 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Felts v. Galloway, 219 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. The judgment appealed herein is affirmed on the authority of the decision rendered and filed this day in the companion case of Felts v. Evans, Fla.App., 219 So. 2d 721. WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Shapiro Bros. Factors Corp. v. May's Moving & Storage, Inc., 199 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Pooton v. Berutich, 199 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)