HENLEY
v.
CARTER ET AL.; CARTER V. CARTER ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court held that contributory negligence is a valid defense in Guest Statute personal injury actions, even though the statute requires proof of 'gross negligence' and 'willful and wanton misconduct.' A guest who voluntarily rides with an intoxicated driver may be barred from recovery based on their own negligence.
Contributory negligence and assumption of risk are proper defenses in Guest Statute actions. A guest who voluntarily rides with a driver known to be unsafe—such as one who is intoxicated—may be precluded from recovery due to their own contributory negligence.
“The mere fact that one is injured in an automobile accident does not ipso facto open the door for relief.”
Establishes that injury alone does not guarantee recovery under the Guest Statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident occurred during bad weather (wind, rain, thunder, lightning) when the driver and some passengers had been drinking before the j…
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 Guest Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Both these appeals are from judgments in favor of defendants in personal injury actions that grew out of a common automobile accident, based on the Guest Statute, Section 320.59, F.S.A. The sole point for determination is whether or not contributory negligence may be imposed as a defense in an action for personal injuries brought under the Guest Statute, which requires the claimant to show “gross negligence” and “willful and wanton misconduct”.
It appears that the driver of the automobile and some of the guests had been drinking before commencing the journey in which the accident took place. It is shown that the weather was unsettled, that it was windy, rain was falling and thunder and lightning were constant. There is no-showing oí rapid speed or wabbling from one side of the road to the other. It is shown that the automobile struck a narrow wooden bridge and careened into the creek, causing the accident out of which these suits were precipitated.
There might be circumstances under which contributory negligence would not be a proper defense in a case of this kind, but other states authorizing actions for recovery under the guest statute, hold that contributory negligence or assumption of risk is a good defense, and if this court has not directly so held, the inference from our decisions is such as to be equivalent to so holding. Knudsen v. Hanlan, 160 Fla. 566, 36 So. 2d 192; Shams v. Saportas, 152 Fla. 48, 10 So. 2d 715; Peninsular Telephone Co. v. Marks, 144 Fla. 652, 198 So. 330; Crowell v. M. R. & R. Trucking Co., 5 Cir., 157 F. 2d 963; McGeever v. O’Byrne, 203 Ala. 266, 82 So. 508; Lewis v. Chitwood Motor Co., 196 Ark. 86, 115 S.W. 2d 1072; House v. Schmelzer, 3 Cal.App.2d 601, 40 P. 2d 577; Horne v. Neill, 70 Ga.App. 602, 29 S.E. 2d 275; Petersen v. Abrams, 188 Or. 518, 216 P. 2d 664. Many other cases might be cited supporting this view.
The mere fact that one is injured in an automobile accident does not ipso facto open the door for relief. One relying on the guest statute is required to exercise such prudent care as the circumstances warrant. If he voluntarily rides with, one who is not a safe driver by reason of having imbibed too much, or is, for other reasons, not in condition to embark on the journey, he may be guilty of contributory negligence that will preclude recovery.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Herring v. Wilber T. Eiland, 81 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1955)…who thereafter, without warning or objection, embarked upon the expedition and slept throughout the trip, and consequently, by assuming the risks of the journey, was guilty of contributory negligence which would bar recovery. Henley v. Carter, Fla., 63 So. 2d 192; Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co. v. Harper, 142 Fla. 27, 194 So. 353. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment the plaintiff did not present affidavits in support of the genuineness of the complaint, or affidavits in opposition to the motion sh…
-
Answerl Richardson v. Sams, 166 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…proposed amended defense are assigned as error by the appellant-defendant in this appeal. The rule is well settled in this state that the defense of contributory negligence is available in automobile guest [*472] passenger cases. Henley v. Carter, 63 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1953); 3 Fla.Jur., Automobiles, Sec. 171. The rule is equally well settled that a trial court’s instructions to a jury must be based upon the evidence adduced at the trial under the issues drawn by the parties’ pleadings. Atlantic Coast Line R.…
-
Hoisington v. Kulchin, 164 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of City of Miami v. Saunders, 151 Fla. 699, 10 So. 2d 326; City of Miami v. Fuller, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 198; Henley v. Carter, Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 192, 44 A.L.R.2d 1339; Loftin v. Bryan, Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 310; Herring v. Eiland, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 645; Dye v. Freeman, Fla.App.1959, 116 So. 2d 647.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Knudsen v. Hanlon, 160 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1948)
- Peninsular Tel. Co. v. Marks, 144 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1940)
- Shams v. Saportas, 152 Fla. 48 (Fla. 1942)
- Crowell v. M. R. & R. Trucking Co., 157 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1946)