Barfield By and Through Barfield v. Langley, 82-1959
| Decision Date | 08 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1959,82-1959 |
| Parties | Jason Lee BARFIELD, a minor, By and Through his father and natural guardian, and Roger BARFIELD, individually, Appellants, v. Joseph LANGLEY, Charlotte Langley and Summit Home Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ernest M. Jones, Jr. of Jacobs, Valentine, Groseclose, McCarthy & Vining, P.A., Lakeland, for appellants.
Margaret E. Sojourner of Haas, Boehm, Brown & Rigdon, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.
The plaintiffs, Jason Barfield, a minor, by and through his father, Roger Barfield, and Roger Barfield, individually, appeal a final summary judgment order entered in favor of the defendants, Joseph and Charlotte Langley, husband and wife, and their insurer Summit Home Insurance Company, in a personal injury action. We reverse and remand because genuine issues of material fact exist.
The following factual picture, including its pertinent conflicting portions, may be drawn from the evidence adduced through discovery prior to rendition of the final summary judgment order: Charlotte Langley agreed with Jane Barfield, Roger's wife, to take care of the Barfields' children, Jason, then age eight, and Allison, then age three, at the Langleys' home in Lakeland, Florida, during the afternoon of November 22, 1980. After Charlotte picked up Jason and Allison that afternoon at the Barfields' house and returned with them to the Langleys' home, Charlotte's son Joey, then age nine, phoned his friend Shane Peacock, then age nine, and told him to come over with his BB gun.
After hanging up the phone, Joey went outside with his own BB gun in Jason's company in order to wait for Shane. Charlotte and Joey testified in respective depositions that she did not know that he took his BB gun outside with him. But Jason said that she did know that Joey took his gun outside with him.
Shortly thereafter, Shane arrived at the Langleys' residence with his BB gun. Charlotte said that he left the gun on the porch pursuant to her command that he do so if he wanted to play outside with Jason and Joey. Shane also stated in a deposition that he left his gun on the porch when he arrived. However, he indicated that he did so without being instructed to do so by Charlotte. Moreover, he said that just before leaving the Langleys' home to play in a field with Jason and Joey, he retrieved it and told Charlotte that he had it with him. He added that Charlotte knew that both he and Joey were using their guns, but did not say anything about their using them.
Approximately one-half hour after his arrival, Shane fired his BB gun from a foxhole in the direction of another foxhole in which Jason and Joey were situated. The pellet ricocheted off of a board located near Jason and Joey's foxhole and struck Jason by the right eye, causing permanent injury.
Appellants subsequently filed a complaint against appellees, alleging negligence. The court below expressly found in its final summary judgment order that no genuine issues of material fact need to be decided by the trier of fact. We disagree.
It is axiomatic that an action undertaken for the benefit of another, even gratuitously, must be performed in accordance with an obligation to exercise reasonable care. See, e.g., Banfield v. Adington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893 (1932); Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. By and Through Motorcity of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Southeast Bank, N.A.
...highlights the fact that the rule applies only where actions are undertaken for the benefit of another. See Barfield v. Langley, 432 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1983) (explaining that "action undertaken for the benefit of another ... must be performed in accordance with an obligation to......
-
Schwab v. United States
...as well as provides transportation. Garrison Retirement Home Corp. v. Hancock, 484 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Barfield v. Langley, 432 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Kaufman v. A-1 Bus Lines, Inc., 416 So.2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In accordance with § 324A, the United States may be hel......
-
State Auto Ins. Companies v. BNC
...to exercise a reasonable degree of care in protecting [the child] from reasonably foreseeable harm." Barfield By and Through Barfield v. Langley, 432 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1983). In Rogers v. Murch, 253 Mass. 467, 149 N.E. 202, 203 (1925) an auto repair shop kept a vehicle inside......
-
Souran v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...Even if Travelers had no duty to respond, since it did respond, it incurred a duty to exercise due care. See Barfield v. Langley, 432 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) ("an action undertaken for the benefit of another, even gratuitously, must be performed in accordance with an obligatio......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...Accordingly, we do not address the sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations to state a cause of action.”). 2. Barfield v. Langley , 432 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“It is axiomatic that an action undertaken for the benefit of another, even gratuitously, must be performed in accorda......