CRIPPEN OLDSMOBILE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK BRABEC, 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.
Crippen Oldsmobile appeals a jury verdict holding it liable as a bailee for personal property stolen from a customer's car while in the defendant's overnight possession for repairs. The court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the bailee had actual or constructive knowledge of the property in the car's trunk.
The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant-bailee had actual or constructive knowledge of the property in the trunk, thus establishing the defendant's liability for the loss.
[1] A bailee's liability for the loss of personal property stored in a bailed vehicle depends on whether the bailee had actual or constructive knowledge of the property's pre…
[2] An appellate court's review is limited to errors of law, not questions of fact.
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 key issue in the case at bar is factual, to-wit: whether defendant-bailee had actual or constructive knowledge of the said personal property being in the said trunk, as claimed by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant.”
Establishes that the central issue for the jury was the bailee's knowledge of the plaintiff's property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Brabec left his car with Crippen Oldsmobile for repairs, with personal property valued at $1,400.40 in the trunk. The defendant kept the car ove…
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 Actual Or Constructive Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment of a Civil Court of Record of Dade County, Florida. There was a jury verdict in the Civil Court of Record entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellee awarding him damages in the sum of $1,400.40 and costs to compensate him for the loss of personal property which had been placed in the trunk of his car, which car with the contents in the trunk, was in the defendant’s possession for repairs. The defendant-appellant kept plaintiff’s car overnight on premises secured by a chain across its car lot in order to proceed with the repairs to be made on the following day. During the night, thieves stole the plaintiff’s car and also a new car belonging to the defendant.
It is understood that the legal relationship of the parties was that of plaintiff-bailor and defendant-bailee’s liability depended on whether the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the plaintiff’s said personal property which was lost when the plaintiff’s car, while in the custody of the defendant overnight, was stolen and recovered some days later with the said personal property missing.
Defendant admitted that its agent had left the car keys in the ignition of the said car.
It is elementary that the applicable law depends on the facts established at the trial.
The key issue in the case at bar is factual, to-wit: whether defendant-bailee had actual or constructive knowledge of the said personal property being in the said trunk, as claimed by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant.
*555The jury, acting under the court’s instructions, expressly approved by both plaintiff and defendant, chose to believe the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses and rendered a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.
This court finds, from the trial record submitted, that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. It is not the function of an appellate court to retry a case or to substitute its judgment for that of a jury. Its review is limited to the correction of errors of law, and is not authorized to review questions of fact. The weight of the evidence and credibility of witnesses are questions which are to be resolved at the trial rather than on appeal. See 2 Fla.Jur. 710, Appeals, Section 340 and cases cited.
The judgment below is affirmed.