GENERAL AVIATION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK ELLIOTT, A MINOR AND E. B. ELLIOTT, JR., AS THE NATURAL GUARDIAN OF MARK ELLIOTT, A MINOR, 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.
General Aviation Corporation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its third-party complaint against a minor, Elliott, who was sued for negligently damaging an aircraft during instructional flying. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that a minor can disaffirm a bailment contract for instructional flying and is not liable for damages resulting from the aircraft's mechanical failure during performance of the contract.
A minor may disaffirm an oral bailment contract for instructional flying based on his minority. The summary judgment was proper because the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits conclusively established that the aircraft's destruction resulted from engine failure during operation within the scope of the bailment contract, raising no genuine issue of material fact and entitling the minor appellee to summary judgment as a matter of law.
[1] A minor may disaffirm a contract entered into during minority as an affirmative defense.
[2] A contract for instructional flying may not be considered a contract for necessaries.
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 pleadings, deposition and affidavit on file affirmatively show that there is no genuine issue of material fact upon the third party claim and that the appellee was entitled to the summary final judgment as a matter of law”
Establishes the court's basis for affirming summary judgment—no genuine factual dispute existed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeneral Aviation Corporation contracted with Elliott, a minor, for instructional flying using Elliott's airplane. During the contract performance, the…
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 Contract For Hire cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment for a third party defendant in an action for a tort growing out of a contract. The appellant, General Aviation Corporation, was sued by the owner of an airplane alleging that General Aviation contracted for the use of that airplane which was subsequently demolished while in General Aviation’s custody. The plaintiff is not a party to this appeal. The appellant filed a third party complaint against Elliott, the appellee, alleging that Elliott, as bailee under a contract for instructional flying, was responsible for the loss of the plane. At the time of the contract, Elliott was a minor, and in this case, he raised as an affirmative defense his disaffirmance of the contract on the basis of his minority. See Sparr v. Florida Southern Ry. Co., 25 Fla. 185, 6 So. 60 (1889) and Hartman Auto Sales, Inc. v. Jaye, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 97.
We agree with the trial court that the pleadings, deposition and affidavit on file affirmatively show that there is no genuine issue of material fact upon the third party claim and that the appellee was entitled to the summary final judgment as a matter of law.
General Aviation suggests (1) that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the minor’s contract was for necessaries, (2) that the evidence showed Elliott’s departure from the purpose of the contract, thereby rendering him liable even though he was a minor and (3) that Elliott was liable for the negligent operation of the aircraft despite his minority. The record does not raise an issue on any of these matters. It appears without genuine issue that the operation of the aircraft was within the scope of the oral bailment, a contract for hire. It further appears with issue of fact that the destruction of the aircraft was caused by the failure of the aircraft engine.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hartman Auto Sales, Inc. v. Jaye, 214 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Sparr v. The Fla. S. Ry. Co., 25 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1889)