VICTOR D. HOLLANDER, APPELLANT,
v.
NOLAN BROWN MOTORS, INC., 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.
A plaintiff appealed a directed verdict entered in favor of a repair shop (bailee) after the plaintiff's automobile was stolen from the shop's premises while undergoing service. The court affirmed the directed verdict because the appellant failed to provide a complete trial record, preventing meaningful review of whether a prima facie case of negligence was established under bailment law.
The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict judgment, holding that without a complete trial record showing the evidence presented, the court could not determine whether the plaintiff made a sufficient showing under the applicable bailment law, and therefore could not demonstrate error in the trial court's ruling which comes with a presumption of correctness.
[1] A bailee's liability for lost or stolen entrusted goods is determined by whether the bailee exercised the degree of care a reasonably prudent person would bestow on their…
[2] An appellate court may affirm a judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court if the judgment is otherwise sustainable.
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 test of liability of a bailee for entrusted goods which are lost or stolen is whether the bailee exercised that degree of care toward the goods that a reasonably prudent person would bestow on his own goods.”
Establishes the legal standard for bailee liability in cases of lost or stolen property.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff delivered his automobile to Nolan Brown Motors for wheel alignment and lubrication. While the vehicle was stored on the defendant's busi…
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 Bailee Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the defendant Nolan Brown Motors, Inc., directed at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff delivered his automobile to the defendant at its place of business, to have the wheels aligned and for lubrication. Some time that day, while the vehicle was stored on defendant’s business premises, either before or after the repair and servicing (the record not revealing which) the car was removed or stolen therefrom by a person or persons unknown. This action was by the plaintiff to recover the value of the vehicle.
The appellant has not supplied a record of the trial proceedings, other than four pages which reveal presentation and argument of the motion of the defendant for directed verdict and the colloquy of counsel and the court thereon.
The appellant contends that the granting of the directed verdict by the court was error in that it was based on an incorrect application of law. The portion of the record submitted reveals the trial court, on considering the motion for directed verdict, stated “unless you can both make or show a standard of care in a community, you have not shown the standard of care required. You could have brought in from outside Nolan Brown and established a standard within the community of dealers.”
Without necessity to decide whether the trial court proceeded on an inapplicable rule of law, if the judgment is sustainable on other grounds it should be affirmed. Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., Fla. 1957, 98 So.2d 77; In re Estate of Yohn, Fla. 1970, 238 So.2d 290.
The defendant was a bailee of plaintiff’s automobile. The test of liability of a bailee for entrusted goods which are lost or stolen is whether the bailee exercised that degree of care toward the goods that a reasonably prudent person would bestow on his own goods. 4 Fla.Jur., Bailments, § 9; 15 Fla.Jur., Garages, Filling and Parking Station, and Liveries, § 18.
In the absence of a record revealing the evidence presented by and on *11behalf of the plaintiff, we cannot determine whether a sufficient showing was made by plaintiff to make a prima facie case under the applicable law, and the appellant is not in position to demonstrate error in the challenged ruling of the trial court, which comes here with a presumption of correctness. See Broward County Port Authority for Use and Benefit of Cappelen v. F. M. Rule & Company, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 82; Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley & Yawn, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 447; Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johnstoneaux, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 86.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Carl Sylvester Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970)
- Broward Cnty. Port Auth. v. F. M. Rule & Co., 119 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., 98 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1957)
- Latin Am. Benefit Ctr., Inc. v. Raphael Johstoneaux, 257 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Gilson v. Murphy, 151 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)