Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, A-479
| Decision Date | 02 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A-479,A-479 |
| Parties | COX MOTOR COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Elizabeth FABER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Alfred A. Green and Alfred A. Green, Jr., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Maurice Wagner and Richard D. Bertone, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
MOODY, JAMES S., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court for Volusia County, in a pedestrian-automobile collision case in which a directed verdict for the plaintiff, appellee herein, was returned pursuant to the court's order. The court found as a matter of law the defendant, appellant herein, to be the owner of the vehicle involved and liable for the damages sustained and submitting to the jury the sole question of the amount of damages to be awarded, pursuant to which verdict was returned in the amount of $23,416.
The pertinent facts pertaining to the legal issues presented by this appeal follow: on January 7, 1959, one Hildebrand came to the defendant's used car lot and after negotiations signed a contract to purchase a 1950 Chevrolet at a price of $295. The contract was entitled 'Retail Buyer's Order' and specifically provided that the purchaser agreed to purchase, under the terms and conditions set forth therein, the automobile above described; that such terms and conditions comprised the entire agreement and no other agreement of any kind, verbal understanding or promise whatsoever, would be recognized and that said order was not binding on the defendant dealer until accepted by the dealer in writing. It appears that the following day the purchaser returned, the contract was accepted by the dealer's sales manager in behalf of the dealer and that an addition was made to the contract providing that the purchase price would be paid $50 in cash, execution of a note for $45, and the balance in twelve monthly installments. The purchaser paid the said $50 at that time, or within several days thereafter, and made a further cash payment of $15 on January 28, 1957. The automobile was delivered to the purchaser on January 8, and thereafter the said purchaser in driving said automobile was involved in an accident on February 7, 1957, the subject of this suit.
The question naturally arising is as to the beneficial ownership of the automobile at the time of the accident. The general governing rule is that naked legal title does not determine ownership in considering tort liability but such ownership is determined by the party having a beneficial interest with control and authority over the use thereof. Palmer v. R. S. Evans, Fla., 81 So.2d 635. Whether or not such ownership actually passed depends upon a determination of the legal rights under the agreement to purchase between the defendant and purchaser. The parties differ as to the rights created thereunder. The trial judge rightfully undertook to interpret the contract as a matter of law, and did not submit the question of interpretation to the jury. This was an ordinary automobile contract to purchase subject to the conditions delineating the rights of the respective parties. Where there are no apparent ambiguities in the contract the interpretation of such contract is a question of law for the court. The pertinent provisions of the agreement are as follows:
'It is agreed that cash for used car or proceeds from the sale of such used car, accepted as a deposit on this order, shall be held in trust * * * until deal is effected.'
A further provision provided:
.
There then followed the following provision, which creates the primary problem in this case:
'It is expressly agreed that the purchaser acquires no right, title or interest in or to the property which he agrees to purchase hereunder until such property is delivered to him and either the full purchase price is paid in cash or a satisfactory deferred payment agreement is executed by the parties hereto, the terms of which shall thereafter be controlling'.
The trial court in directing a verdict as to the ownership of the vehicle based its decision on the provision last above cited and held that as a matter of law this clause was controlling as to legal and beneficial ownership and that there had been no showing that the purchase price had been paid in cash or a satisfactory deferred payment agreement had been executed by the parties prior to the accident. This decision was apparently bottomed on the case of Huskamp Motor Co. v. Hebden, Fla.App., 104 So.2d 96, 97. However, we do not feel that such case is controlling in the case at bar.
The Huskamp case involved a situation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Seebach
...with control and authority over the use of the vehicle is the party who is liable for a tort committed by its use. Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So.2d 771 (1959). Under Florida law, the owner of an automobile is responsible for the manner in which it is used on the highways and the owner's li......
-
J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Quiroz
...the truck for Neal's personal and business use while he was employed by the corporation in Costa Rica. See Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Ginsberg v. Goldstein, 404 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); 56 Fla.Jur.2d Trusts § 90 (1985). The entire burden of the appellan......
-
Bowen v. Taylor–Christensen
...to rule, as a matter of law, that the title holder is liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. See Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Otherwise, the question of beneficialownership must be submitted to the jury, as was done here. The real problem in this ......
-
Bowen v. Taylor-Christensen
...to rule, as a matter of law, that the title holder is liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. See Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Otherwise, the question of beneficial ownership must be submitted to the jury, as was done here. The real problem in thi......