RUTHERFORD ET AL.
v.
ALLEN PARKER CO.
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 affirmed that a holder of a retain-title or conditional sale contract on an automobile is not liable in damages to third parties for injuries sustained through negligent operation of the vehicle by the purchaser, provided the seller complies with statutory title transfer requirements under Section 319.22(2), F.S.A.
The holder of a retain-title or conditional sale contract is not liable in damages to third parties for injuries from negligent operation by the purchaser when the seller complies with Section 319.22(2), F.S.A., by properly endorsing and delivering the certificate of title or providing proper notice to the motor vehicle commissioner.
“An owner who has made a bo-na fide sale or transfer of a motor vehicle and has delivered possession thereof to a purchaser shall not by reason of any of the provisions of this law, be deemed the owner of such vehicle so as to be subject to civil liability for the operation of such vehicle thereafter by another when such owner has fulfilled either of the following requirements”
Establishes the statutory basis for relieving owners of civil liability when proper title transfer procedures are followed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff brought suit directly against the holder of a retain-title or conditional sale contract for injuries sustained from negligent operation …
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 Conditional Sales Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice.
The point for determination in this case is whether or not the holder of a retain-title or conditional sale contract on an automobile is liable in damages to a third party for injuries sustained in the negligent operation of said automobile by the purchaser. There is no dispute about the facts. No question as to non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is raised. It is shown that the action was brought directly against the holder of the retain-title or conditional sale contract and not against the purchaser and operator of the automobile.
On a motion to1 dismiss complaint the trial court answered the question presented in the negative. The purpose of Section 319.22(2), F.S.A., as follows:
“(2) An owner who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of a motor vehicle and has delivered possession thereof to a purchaser shall not by reason of any of the provisions of this law, be deemed the owner of such vehicle so as to be subject to civil liability for the operation of such vehicle thereafter by another when such owner has fulfilled either of the following requirements : “(a) When such owner has made proper endorsement and delivery of the certificate of title as provided by this law. “(b) When such owner has delivered to the commissioner, or placed in the United States mail, addressed to the commissioner, either certificate of title properly endorsed, or the following notice: Motor Vehicle Commissioner Tallahassee, Florida I have this day sold and delivered to • - — -, Motor (Name and Address of New Owner) Vehicle, Certificate of Title No.- Make-Type-Model - Serial No. - Motor No. - Year Made - Date-- —-- (Former Owner) (Address of Former Owner)” to relieve the owne,r of an automobile from civil liability for its operation by another when said act is complied with by issuing and endorsing certificate of title as provided therein to the motor vehicle commissioner. There is no suggestion here that said act was not fully complied with.
Appellants contend that the ruling of this Court in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So. 2d 673 is more in point and is controlling. We have examined this case and' it seems to have turned on the fact that there was no showing that the automobile involved in the accident had been paid for in cash or that the provisions of Section 319.22 F.S.A. had been complied with. The complaint in question does not negative compliance with either of said conditions, and makes no issue as to such compliance. This being the case, we must-assume that the sale in question was consummated in compliance with the last cited statute, and being so, there was no liability on the part of appellee, the holder of the retain-title contract. Wells v. Eville, Fla., 41 So. 2d 147; Livingston v. National Shawmut Bank, Fla., 62 So. 2d 13.
The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., and PARKS, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palmer v. Evans, 81 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1955)…taining to endorsement and delivery of the title certificate, which appellant contends R. S. Evans has not complied with. The provisions of this section have been construed in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So. 2d 673, Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So. 2d 763, and Platt v. Dreka, Fla., 79 So. 2d 670, opinion filed April 6, 1955. In the Ragg and Platt cases, supra, this court was careful to point out that Chapter 319, Florida Statutes, did not provide an exclusive method of transferring title nor abrogate…
-
Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2000)…s of the conditional sales statute may be exempt from vicarious liability, even though the entity retains legal title to the vehicle as security for the payment of the purchase price.3 See Kraemer, 572 So. 2d at 1365; Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., 67 So. 2d 763 (1953). In Metzel v. Robinson, 102 So. 2d 385, 385-86 (Fla.1958), the Court made it clear that, absent a conditional sales agreement, the circumstances where an entity or individual who possessed legal title would not be vicariously liable under th…
-
Frankel v. Fleming, 69 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1954)…is not indispensable to recovery, for the misfortune of the injured person should not depend entirely ,on the repository of the legal title; nor is recovery dependent upon perfection of title in a given person, Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So. 2d 763, construing Section 319.22(2), Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A. Plaving held a lessee liable in the cited case, Wilson v. Burke, supra, we find no difficulty in now holding the appellant, á bailee, responsible in the instant case for injury caused…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ragg v. Hurd, 60 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1952)
- Livingston v. Nat'l Shawmut Bank of Boston, 62 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1952)