WILLIAM EDWIN CLEMENTS, AND EDYTHE CLEMENTS, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE BARBER AND SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The trial court correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants because there was no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs sued the owner of an automobile and their insurer after a stranger took the unattended, unlocked car with keys in the ignition and caused d…
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 Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, sued the defendants who are respectively, the owner of an automobile and the owner’s insurer. The complaint alleged that the owner left the automobile unattended with doors unlocked and the key in the ignition switch in the unobstructed view of passersby, in an unprotected and unguarded parking place beside the street in an unincorporated area of Dade County, Florida. A stranger whom the owner observed nearby took unlawful possession of the automobile and thereafter damaged plaintiffs in the operation of the automobile. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants upon the authority of the law as stated in Lingefelt v. Hanner, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 325 and Bryant v. Atlantic Car Rental, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 910.1
On this appeal appellant states:
“ . . . we hope to present foursquare the question of whether application of the foreseeability rule to the particular facts of this case, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Florida and the First DCA, would distinguish the case sub judice from Lingefelt. We are also hopeful that technical advances and public policy developed since the Lingefelt case will persuade the Court to a second look at its holding therein.”
We have examined the arguments advanced in the light of this record and find *466that the trial judge correctly applied the cited authority and determine that the pleadings, depositions and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maretha Williams and Harry Williams v. Stillwell, 259 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lingefelt v. Hanner (Fla.App.1960), 125 So. 2d 325. See, also, the recent case of Clements v. Barber (Fla. App.3d) 258 So. 2d 465, opinion filed December 14, 1971, reaffirming the holding of Lingefelt. LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.…
-
Clements v. Barber, 261 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 258 So. 2d 465. ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Alvarez v. The HERTZ Corp., 327 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…tered summary judgment upon the facts viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff’s case. See Lingefelt v. Hanner, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 325; Bryant v. Atlantic Car Rental, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 910; Clements v. Barber, Fla.App.1971, 258 So. 2d 465. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Lingefelt v. Hanner, 125 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Bryant v. Atl. CAR Rental, Inc., 127 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Clements v. Crawford, 247 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)