HELEN M. SCHNEIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELYN EDITH SAXON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a final judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action under the guest statute. The court found that the question of gross negligence, which is required to overcome the guest statute, should be decided by a jury.
Yes, the amended complaint states a cause of action under the guest statute. The question of whether the defendant's actions constituted gross negligence is a matter for the jury to determine.
“A majority of the court have reached the conclusion that this question requires an affirmative answer and being so, the judgment appealed from should he reversed on authority of Dexter v. Green, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 548, and Bridges v. Speer, Fla., 79 So. 2d 679, decided. May 13, 1955, headnotes 5, 6 and 7.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion that the complaint stated a cause of action and the basis for reversing the lower court's decision.
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 sued the defendant for personal injuries sustained while a guest in the defendant's vehicle. The trial court dismissed the amended compl…
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.
Plaintiff instituted this suit -.against defendant to recover damages for personal injuries under the guest statute, Chapter-320.59,: F.S.A. A motion to dismiss the amended 'complaint was granted -on the theory-that it showed a mere errdf of judgment on the -part of 'defendant, whose guest the plaintiff-was and that gross negligence-was not shown. Final judgment was entered for defendant and the plaintiff1 appealed.
The only point for determination-is whether or not the complaint stated a cause of action under the guest statute.
A majority -of the 'court have-- reached the -conclusion that this question requires an-affirmative" answer and' being so, the judgment appealed -from should he reversed on authority-of Dexter v. Green, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 548, and Bridges v. Speer, Fla., 79 So. 2d 679, decided. May 13, 19-55, headnotes 5, 6 and 7. It should not'he overlooked'-that'gro'ss-negligence in such cases is question for-the-jury.
Reversed.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur. SEBRING, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faircloth v. Hill, 85 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1956)…hin the limits of our prior decisions. See Shams v. Saportas, 152 Fla. 48, 10 So. 2d 715; De Wald v. Quarnstrom, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 919; Brown v. Roach, Fla.1954, 67 So. 2d 201; Weiss v. Kamen, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 761; Schneider v. Saxon, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 501; Dexter v. Green, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 548. Upon careful consideration of the record and briefs we find that the able trial judge-committed error in sustaining the motion to dismiss. The judgment is therefore reversed for further proceedings in acc…
-
FOY v. Fleming, 168 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…hin the limits of our prior decisions. See Shams v. Saportas, 152 Fla. 48, 10 So. 2d 715; De Wald v. Quarnstrom, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 919; Brown v. Roach, Fla.1954, 67 So. 2d 201; Weiss v. Kamen, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 761; Schneider v. Saxon, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 501; Dexter v. Green, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 548.” (Emphasis supplied.) Our Supreme Court has repeatedly-held that where the line separating simple and gross negligence is indistinct that the wise course to follow is one which leaves the question to the j…
-
Welch v. Moothart, 89 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1956)…clude that .this constituted gross negligence. The jury was acting under proper instructions, and it is to be remembered that gross negligence in such cases is a question for the jury. Clements v. Deeb, Fla., 88 So. 2d 505; Schneider v. Saxon, Fla., 82 So. 2d 501. We next consider the fourth point raised by the appellant wherein it is urged that the court erred in denying a motion made by the defense for leave to interpose a plea of contributory negligence. An examination of the record shows that the jury w…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bergen v. Wyett Shultz, 79 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)
- Bridges v. Speer, 79 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)
- Dexter v. Green, 55 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1951)