LUCILLE L. HANDSEL AND BERNARD HANDSEL, APPELLANTS,

v.

ROSE HANDSEL AND JULIUS HANDSEL, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Sproule v. Nelson, 81 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1955)
  …f no avail. The guest statute does not apply when the transportation is solely for the benefit or mutual benefit of the passenger and the owner of the car. Peery v. Mershon, Fla., 1942, 149 Fla. 351, 5 So. 2d 694, and Handsel v. Handsel, Fla., 1954, 72 So. 2d 813. The evidence shows that the transportation in question was for the mutual advantage of the plaintiff and appellant and that riding the truck was customary practice when fueling the wings of an airplane. Aside from the foregoing, the rule is settled…
• Sullivan v. Stock, 98 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
  …rom the aforesaid transaction.” The Supreme Court of Florida has-in three cases clearly distinguished between who is a guest passenger and who is not, [*509] namely, Peery v. Mershon, 1942, 149 Fla; 351, 5 So. 2d 694; Handsel v. Handsel, Fla. 1954, 72 So. 2d 813; and Sproule v. Nelson, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 478, 480. In the Mershon case, headnote 2, it is said; “Where relation of master and servant exists between passenger and operator of automobile, as result of which tangible benefits accrue to operator f…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Bramble v. Garris, 144 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
  …e considered. Plaintiff-servant was allowed to recover for injuries suffered proximately from the simple negligence of the defendant wife. The exceptions then grafted upon the guest statute were expanded in the case of Handsel v. Handsel, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 813. A directed verdict for plaintiff on the issue of negligence was affirmed per curiam on the authority of the Peery v. Mershon case and the cited sections of Blashfield. A specially concurring opinion noted that the doctrine of the Mershon case was b…

Authorities Cited

• Peery v. Mershon, 5 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1942)