Hurte v. Lane, Civ. A. No. 689.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 689. |
| Citation | 166 F. Supp. 413 |
| Parties | Tommie A. HURTE, Plaintiff, v. Katherine LANE and Ted C. Lane, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Harry Morrison, Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff.
Keen, O'Kelley & Spitz, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.
Plaintiff alleges in complaint that defendants, husband and wife, are residents of the State of Indiana and that defendant wife was the owner of a motor vehicle, which was being operated by her husband with her consent at the time of the accident injuring plaintiff. Defendants' automobile developed some mechanical difficulty and they were forced to stop after pulling off the highway at an ice plant. After looking under the hood, defendant husband requested plaintiff, who was standing nearby, to pour gasoline into the carburetor. While plaintiff was doing this, defendant husband got into the driver's seat of the vehicle, turned on the ignition and pressed the starter. The motor backfired, and the gasoline being poured by plaintiff burst into flames and injured him.
By motion to dismiss defendants contend that these facts do not justify a finding that the vehicle was being "operated" under the language of Florida's statute for service on non-resident vehicle operators (Florida Statutes 47.29, 1957, F.S.A.), and that, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction over the persons, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. While there does not seem to be a ruling from the Florida Courts on the precise point, other jurisdictions have considered the problem with reference to almost identical statutes and have generally concluded that the "operation" of a motor vehicle should not be given such limited scope.
In activating the ignition and in pressing the starter, the defendant here placed the mechanism into mechanical operation. To make the actual movement of the wheels of the vehicle the test of "operation" under these circumstances would be to give the statute such rigid limitation as to be unrealistic. Indeed, by ordinary understanding, in initiating the force of motivation of machinery, one is operating it and his intent in so doing is not the test.
It has been found that a vehicle which is standing or parked at the time an accident occurs was operated. Hand v. Frazer, 139 Misc. 446, 248 N.Y.S. 557, affirmed 233 App.Div. 800, 250...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaffer v. Mill Owners Mut. Ins. Co.
...Gallagher v. District Court, 112 Mont. 253, 114 P.2d 1047 (1941); Larsen v. Powell, 117 F.Supp. 239 (D.C.Col.1953); and Hurte v. Lane, 166 F.Supp. 413 (N.D.Fla.1958). The provisions excluding coverage where young persons are involved are based upon the premise that the young represent a gre......
-
Raspante v. Trans. Supply & Management, Inc.
...connotation of the word 'operate'. Hand v. Frazer, 139 Misc. 446, 248 N.Y.S. 557, affirmed 233 App.Div. 800, 250 N.Y.S. 947; Hurte v. Lane, D.C., 166 F.Supp. 413; Glouzwski v. Ruback, 3 A.D.2d 692 159 N.Y.S.2d 71; Warren's Negligence, Vol. 5 [1958], p. 130, citing Eckert v. G. B. Farrington......
-
State v. Parker
...State v. Overbay, 201 Iowa 758, 206 N.W. 634; State v. Webb, 202 Iowa 633, 210 N.W. 751, 49 A.L.R. 1389, Annotation 1392; Hurte v. Lane, D.C.Fla., 166 F.Supp. 413. The arrest being lawful, the search of defendant's car as an incident thereto, was lawful and the evidence disclosed by the sea......
-
Klein v. Wells
...Cal.App.2d 715, 289 P.2d 542 [1955]; Chiarello v. Guerin Special Motor Freight, 22 N.J.Super. 431, 92 A.2d 136 [1952]; Hurte v. Lane, 166 F.Supp. 413 [D.C.N.D.Fla.1958]; Stroud v. Board of Water Commissioners, 90 Conn. 412, 97 A. 336 [1916]; and Hand v. Frazer, 139 Misc. 446, 248 N.Y.S. 557......