CAROLINE MILLER, A WIDOW, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES PANOSSIAN, 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.
This case addresses whether a "Covenant Not to Sue" executed in favor of one joint tortfeasor legally functions as a "release" that discharges the other joint tortfeasor from liability. The Florida Supreme Court held that such a covenant does not operate as a release, allowing the plaintiff to pursue the second tortfeasor.
No, a "Covenant Not to Sue" does not legally function as a "release" and therefore does not discharge the other joint tortfeasor from liability.
“The only point for determination here is whether an instrument executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favor of one of two alleged joint tort-feasors was, in legal effect, a "release" so as to operate as a discharge of the other joint tortfeasor, the appellee here and defendant below, from liability for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in an accident involving the defendant-appellee and the other alleged joint tortfeasor.”
This quote frames the central legal question of the case.
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-appellant, Caroline Miller, executed an instrument styled a "Covenant Not to Sue" in favor of one of two alleged joint tortfeasors. She …
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 Covenant Not To Sue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The only point for determination here is whether an instrument executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favor of one of two alleged joint tort-feasors was, in legal effect, a “release” so as to operate as a discharge of the other joint tortfeasor, the appellee here and defendant below, from liability for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in an accident involving the defendant-appellee and the other alleged joint tortfeasor. The instrument in question, styled a “Covenant Not to Sue,” is in all material respects identical with that set forth in Martin v. Burney, 160 Fla. 183, 34 So. 2d 36, which was said by this court in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Boone, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 834, 842, to be “A good example of a covenant not to sue”.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed under the authority of the above cited cases and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
TERRELL, Acting C. J., ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., and CROSBY, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. Hialeah MFG. Co. v. City OF Hialeah, 134 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…irmly established in the law of this state that the recording of a plat is an offer to dedicate the streets and that in the absence of public user the offer of dedication may be revoked at any time before acceptance. Marion County v. Gary, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 749 and cases cited therein. The record here fails to reveal any action by either Dade County or the City of Hialeah which can be construed to be an acceptance of the dedication of 27th Street in this subdivision. The city urges (1) that it has never as…
-
Ingeborg Krieger for the Ingeborg Krieger Revocable Tr. v. The Town OF Longboat KEY, 849 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…t with the offer. Therefore, unless the public had accepted the 1914 offer to dedicate prior to the 1919 conveyance, the offer was revoked insofar as it affected the rights and property conveyed to the purchasers of Lot 1. See Marion County v. Gary, 88 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla.1956) (holding that a common law offer to dedicate may be revoked at any time before acceptance); City of Miami, 84 So. at 731 (observing that a common law offer to dedicate may be revoked by virtue of a subsequent conveyance of the proper…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Frona Mae Boone and Helen Goff, 85 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1956)
- Lottie Martin v. Burney, 160 Fla. 183 (Fla. 1948)
- Thompson v. State, 160 Fla. 147 (Fla. 1948)