BARBARA JO HARVEY, A MINOR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER, JOSEPH R. HARVEY, AND JOSEPH R. HARVEY, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERTHA L. ROGERS, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MYRTILLA C. LAMPKIN, DECEASED, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1969-08-28
No. K-22
CARROL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
226 So. 2d 117 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed on the authority of Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 175 So.2d 198 (Fla.1965), and Nettles v. Thornton, 198 So.2d 44 (Fla.App.1967).

CARROL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Stewart, 427 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …mmon law] indemnity against his negligent independent contractor hired to discharge the nondelegable duty.” Wetherington, Tort Indemnity in Florida, 8 Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 383, 408 (1980), citing, Grand Union Co. v. Prudential Building Maintenance Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); din’s Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Royal Continental Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1966); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. J.C. Penney Co., 166 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); see also…
  • …policy is an employer’s policy and, although the employer is responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer is entitled to indemnity against a negligent employee. See Grand Union Company v. Prudential Building Maintenance Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Patriot’s policy is an owner’s policy and, as stated above, an owner is entitled to indemnification from a negligent permittee. We do not find a basis for a different decision in Continental’s argument that because its policy is…
  • Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Soper, 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
    …d DCA 2001). Because, as demonstrated in that opinion, Carnival cannot be held vicariously liable in this case for Soper’s negligence, we agree that there is no basis for the indemnity claim. Compare Grand Union Co. v. Prudential Bldg. Maint. Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Olin’s Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Continental Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1966). Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw