G & C FORD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID TONER, RESPONDENT
The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court and the writ of certiorari issued. After argument and upon further examination of the record and briefs in this case, we conclude that there is no conflict justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed and the writ is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.
CARLTON, J., not participating.
(dissenting).
Under the principles announced in Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965), a bailor-owner of a car (in this instance G & C Ford Co.) is not liable for injuries his bailee inflicts upon himself by reason of his negligent operation of the bailed car. The dangerous instrumentality and vicarious liability doctrines do not cover such a situation. Neither is the bailor-owner liable for injuries negligently inflicted upon a successor bailee (Toner in this case) by the driver (McGowan) selected by the successor bailee (Toner) to operate the car.
Raydel holds: . . . where a bailee instead of driving the automobile himself permits a third party to drive it for him and is injured by the driver’s negligence while a passenger in the car,” the bailor-owner of the car is not liable. (Text 572.)
ERVIN, Justice
(dissenting).
Under the principles announced in Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1965), a bailor-owner of a car (in this instance G & C Ford Co.) is not liable for injuries his bailee inflicts upon himself by reason of his negligent operation of the bailed car. The dangerous instrumentality and vicarious liability doctrines do not cover such a situation. Neither is the bailor-owner liable for injuries negligently inflicted upon a successor bailee (Toner in this case) by the driver (McGowan) selected by the successor bailee (Toner) to operate the car. Raydel holds: . . . where a bailee instead of driving the automobile himself permits a third party to drive it for him and is injured by the driver’s negligence while a passenger in the car,” the bailor-owner of the car is not liable. (Text 572.)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Clauson, 511 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ing lessee-bailee, her employer, rather than directly from the owner. Applying the principles already discussed, this fact cannot make any legal difference. We do not read Toner v. G & C Ford Co., 249 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. dismissed, 263 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1972), upon which the appel-lee relies, to hold otherwise.4 As we understand it, Toner finds it a jury question as to whether the vehicle was in fact entrusted to the injured passenger or directly to the negligent driver. See Devlin, 454 So. 2d…
-
Enter. Leasing Co. v. Shedrick Almon, 559 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1990)…nferences as to whether he had terminated his status as a bailee and become solely a passenger. In reaching this conclusion, the district court below seemingly relied upon Toner v. G & C Ford Co., 249 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), writ discharged, 263 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1972). In Toner, G & C Ford loaned an automobile to a political candidate for his unrestricted use, including use by campaign workers. Toner, a campaign worker, was driving the vehicle on a combined campaign and personal mission. He met a frien…
-
Shedrick Almon v. Enter. Leasing Co., 537 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…the decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Clauson, 511 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In reaching this conclusion the court distinguished this court’s decision in Toner v. G & C Ford Co., 249 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. dismissed, 263 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1972), and entered summary judgment for appellee. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine encompasses the principle that if an automobile owner permits the vehicle to be used by another the owner may be held liable for injuries to third persons…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1965)