Chase & Co. v. Benefield
| Decision Date | 05 May 1953 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHASE & CO. v. BENEFIELD. |
M. W. Wells of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellant.
J. Thomas Gurney, Orlando, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a personal injury action.
The appellee alleged that at the time and place of the accident a motor vehicle was being operated on the public highway which was owned by the appellant, and the same was so carelessly and negligently driven and operated by 'the driver thereof' that as a proximate result, it ran upon and against and collided with an automobile owned, driven and operated by the appellee. The appellant filed an answer denying the negligence and also denied liability for the alleged acts of 'Willie Reynolds,' and alleged the appellant did not authorize or consent to the use of the automobile by Willie Reynolds. Appellant further alleged that at said time Willie Reynolds was not engaged in the business of the defendant (appellant) and was not acting in the scope of his employment. In another defense appellant denied the acts of Willie Reynolds and alleged that there was no relationship between the defendant (appellant) and Willie Reynolds of master and servant.
The appellant alleges as error the fact that the complaint did not state that Willie Reynolds was driving the automobile and did not in fact identify the driver. The complaint simply alleged that the automobile was owned by the defendant (appellant) and was being driven by the driver thereof.
The appellant did not attack the sufficiency of the complaint on that ground by motion to dismiss, motion to strike or for a disclosure of the name of the driver. Instead of attacking the sufficiency of the complaint, appellant filed defenses and in three separate defenses assumed that Willie Reynolds was the driver of the car and specifically denied that Willie Reynolds had authority or consent from the appellant, and alleged that he did not have such authority or consent; that Willie Reynolds was not engaged upon the business of the defendant (appellant), etc.; denied any relationship between appellant and Willie Reynolds of master and servant.
The case was tried upon the theory that Willie Reynolds was the driver of the truck and all the testimony related to Willie Reynolds as the driver, his relationship with the defendant and his authority to drive.
There was no error as shown by the pleadings in this case because the complaint did not allege that Willie Reynolds was the driver of the automobile.
It is next urged that the appellee failed to prove that the automobile (truck) was owned by the defendant (appellant). This was a material allegation of the complaint and was not specifically denied by the appellant and, therefore, ownership was admitted and was not an issue in the case.
The primary question involved and properly raised by the assignments of error is: Was the automobile (truck) in question intrusted to the care and custody of an employee under the facts and circumstances shown by the record in this case, such that the owner of the truck is liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle by such employee on a public highway?
This is not a case like that of Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. Susco Car Rental System of Fla., Inc.
...that the liability of the owner will not be altered because of a departure beyond the scope of the authority. 8 In Chase & Co. v. Benefield, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 922, 924, the driver was the employee of the owner and had custody of the automobile on week-ends. The owner was held liable even t......
-
Ball v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co., 59-51
...facie case against it. 1 Herr v. Butler, 101 Fla. 1125, 132 So. 815, 816; Greene v. Miller, 102 Fla. 767, 136 So. 532.2 Chase & Co. v. Benefield, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 922.3 Chase & Co. v. Benefield, supra note 2.4 City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 So. 891, 892.5 Lynch v. Walker, ......
-
Kobetitsch v. American Mfrs.' Mut. Ins. Co., 80-275
...operation "no matter where the driver goes, stops or starts." Boggs v. Butler, 129 Fla. 324, 176 So. 174, 176 (1937). Chase & Co. v. Benefield, 64 So.2d 922 (Fla.1953), and Ivey v. National Fisheries Inc., 215 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) were cited both below and in this court for the propo......
-
Alford v. Parker's Mechanical Constructors, Inc.
...JOHNSON, C.J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. 1 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (Fla.1920).2 Chase & Co. v. Benefield, 64 So.2d 922 (Fla.1953), and cases cited therein.3 Thomas v. Atlantic Associates, Inc., 226 So.2d 100 (Fla.1969); Pearson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine I......