HOWARD P. MCCLAIN, AND AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORPORATION, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
IDA MCDERMOTT, A WIDOW, RESPONDENT
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 case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal and reinstated summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The Court held that the defendant's act of parking his car on a thoroughfare after running out of gas was not a proximate cause of the deceased's death when a speeding drunk driver struck the vehicle while the deceased was voluntarily assisting with refueling.
Summary judgment was proper because there was no proximate causal connection between the defendant's alleged negligence in parking on the thoroughfare and the deceased's death caused by the speeding drunk driver. The chain of causation was broken by the deceased's voluntary decision to step off the sidewalk and assist with refueling, an intervening act.
[1] A defendant's liability for negligence is predicated upon the ability to foresee that wrongful conduct might result in the type of harm which did in fact take place, not…
[2] Summary judgments are reviewed with special scrutiny and a jury determination is generally favored when allowable.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[The] liability of a negligent person is not predicated upon his ability to foresee the exact series of events which culminates in injury to another. Liability is predicated, rather, upon the ability of a negligent person to foresee that his wrongful conduct might result in the type of harm which did in fact take place.”
The District Court's articulation of the foreseeability standard for proximate causation, which the Supreme Court rejected as applied to these facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner McClaim, in the hospital supply business, was driving with the deceased, who manufactured surgical implements, to discuss the implement wit…
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 Foreseeability Of Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a negligence case. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, in an opinion reported at 220 So.2d 394, reversed a Circuit Court, Dade County, summary final judgment in favor of petitioner-defendant. One District Court Judge dissented.
The facts are these. Petitioner was in the hospital supply business. Respondent’s husband, now deceased, manufactured a surgical implement. Petitioner and the deceased were driving around the City of Miami for the purpose of discussing the implement with various hospital officials. Petitioner was at the wheel when, as he was negotiating a turn onto a four-lane highway, the engine began to sputter. The car was out of gas. Petitioner completed the turn and brought the car to rest at the curb as if he were normally parking the car. It was early afternoon, traffic was very light and it was a clear day.
The deceased volunteered to get gasoline from a nearby station. When the deceased returned, he was accompanied by a young station attendant. The deceased stood on the sidewalk, and petitioner remained in the car, while the attendant attempted to pour gas in the tank. The attempt was clumsy. The deceased stepped off the sidewalk and volunteered to assist the attendant. A minute or two later, as the deceased was pouring gas, an automobile driven at a high rate of speed by a man who had been drinking crashed into *162the rear of the car, f-atally injuring the deceased.
The deceased’s widow filed a complaint in the Circuit Court under Fla.Stats. §§ 768.01 and 768.02, F.S.A., in which she alleged in part that:
“[Wjhile in the course and scope of his employment * * * [petitioner] did negligently and carelessly operate, maintain and control his motor vehicle, and did further negligently and carelessly and in violation of the Metropolitan Ordinances of Dade County, Florida, park his vehicle on a thoroughfare, and stopped said vehicle on a through street.
“6. That while attempting to assist the Defendant, HOWARD P. McCLAIN, in placing gasoline into the automobile, the said EDWARD B. McDERMOTT, deceased, was struck by another automobile causing his death.
“7. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, EDWARD B. McDERMOTT, was injured in and about his head, neck, back, body limbs and nervous system, and said injuries were so severe as to cause the death of said EDWARD B. McDER-MOTT.”
The Circuit Court found
“[A]fter construing the case in its most favorable light to the Plaintiff, that there is no causal relation between any act or omission claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, and the accident sustained by the deceased, and the loss sustained by the said Plaintiff, and the Defendants are therefore entitled to a Summary Final Judgment as a matter of law.”
The majority of the District Court reversed, holding that
“[The] liability of a negligent person is not predicated upon his ability to foresee the exact series of events which culminates in injury to another. Liability is predicated, rather, upon the ability of a negligent person to foresee that his wrongful conduct might result in the type of harm which did in fact take place. See Mozer v. Semenza, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 880. The kind of harm McClain [petitioner] should have guarded against was such harm as actually occurred. Under these circumstances the issue of negligence was for the jury to determine.”
We cannot agree with the District Court. We view summary judgments with special scrutiny and generally favor a jury determination when allowable. See, e. g., Hodges v. Helm, 222 So.2d 418 (Fla.1969). In the instant case, however, we think summary judgment was proper. See Cone v. Inter County Tel. & Tel. Co., 40 So.2d 148 (Fla.1949); Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26 (1939); Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Mullin, 70 Fla. 450, 70 So. 467, L.R.A.1916P, 982 (1915).
The decision reviewed is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, DREW and BOYD, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…and that appellants’ noncompliance precludes an action on the policy regardless of a showing of prejudice by the insurer. AFFIRMED. DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979); McClain v. McDermott, 232 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1970); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43-44 (Fla.1966). . This cause was originally filed in the county court but later transferred to the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. A bad faith count added [*302] to the complaint was voluntarily dismis…
-
Matthews v. Williford, 318 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…The law is well settled in this state that a remote condition or conduct which furnishes only the occasion for some-oneelse’s supervening negligence is not a proximate cause of the result of the subsequent negligence. McClain v. McDermott, Fla.1970, 232 So. 2d 161; S.A.L.R. Co. v. Mullin, 70 Fla. 450, 70 So. 467; Tampa Elec. Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26; Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co. v. Pope, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 441; McWhorter v. Curby, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 566; Sims v. Apperson Chemicals, Inc., Fl…
-
Whitehead v. Clayton E. Linkous, M.D., 404 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…final judgment in the amount of $70,950. A remote condition or conduct which furnishes only the occasion for someone else’s supervening negligence is not a proximate cause of the result of the subsequent negligence. See e. g., McClain v. McDermott, 232 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1970). Both Dr. Linkous and the hospital assert that the decedent’s acts in attempting to commit suicide were a contributing legal cause of his death and thus subject to the preceding instruction regarding the comparative negligence to the dece…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. Inter Cnty. Tel. Tel. Co., 40 So.2d 148 (Fla. 1949)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746 (Fla. 1939)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Mullin, 70 Fla. 450 (Fla. 1915)
- Mozer v. Semenza, 177 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hodges v. Alwin Helm and Donald G. Helm, 222 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1969)
- McDERMOTT v. McCLAIN, 220 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)