Johnson v. Mills
| Decision Date | 14 December 1948 |
| Citation | 37 So.2d 906 |
| Parties | JOHNSON et al. v. MILLS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Ross Williams, Judge.
Knight Underwood & Cullen, of Miami, for appellants.
McKay Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford, of Miami, for appellee.
The appeal in this case presents the question of liability, on the part of an owner of a motor vehicle, for damages done by an operator thereof.
An action was brought against appellee for damages sustained by the operation of appellee's truck while operated by his agent and servant. In a second count, it was charged that the truck was operated by the same person (McDaniel) with appellee's knowledge and consent.
Pleas were filed denying that McDaniel operated the truck as the agent and servant and also denied that the operation was with appellee's knowledge and consent.
Appellants' evidence disclosed that McDaniel, the operator of the truck had been workign for appellee only about two weeks. He was employed as a truck driver to work five and one-half days per week--getting off at noon on Saturday until the following Monday morning. He was granted permission to use a small delivery truck when off duty. On the Sunday when this accident occurred he had been visiting a friend of his and was using the small delivery truck. While on the visit the truck became stuck in the sand. McDaniel decided to go to appellee's place, get the large truck (which he had been accustomed to drive during his work week) and use it to pull the small truck out of the sand. Thereupon he entered appellee's premises, without appellee's knowledge or consent, took the large truck and proceeded to the place where the small truck was stuck. While en route this injury occurred.
The trial court held there was insufficient evidence to take the case to the jury. We find no error in the judgment of the trial court. McDaniel had no key to the large truck. It was not locked as it had a compression diesel engine which required no switch key. McDaniel consulted with no one about taking the large truck. There was no reason to suppose or suspect that McDaniel would return to the premises on Sunday and use the truck. At that time and place he was no more than a stranger to appellee. This had never happened before and there was no reason to suppose that express permission would have been granted had appellee been consulted. We find no circumstance to imply consent of ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hlad v. State
...was the prevailing view in Florida (see Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Guzman's Estate, 421 So.2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Johnson v. Mills, 37 So.2d 906 (Fla.1948); In re Carpenter's Estate, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla.1971); Davis v. Loftin, 75 So.2d 813 (Fla.1954); Leonetti v. Boone, 74 So.2d 551, 5......
-
Leonard v. Susco Car Rental System of Fla., Inc.
...holding upon the fact that the bailee, being in the automobile, was still in presumptive possession of the automobile. In Johnson v. Mills, Fla.1948, 37 So.2d 906, the driver was an employee of the owner and was using the business truck on Sunday without permission. The owner was not held l......
-
Gulle v. Boggs
...reduced to the status of a permissible inference or deduction which the jury may or may not draw from the evidence before it. Johnson v. Mills, Fla., 37 So.2d 906; Leonetti v. Boone, Fla., 74 So.2d 551; Tyrrell v. Prudential Insurance Company, 109 Vt. 6, 192 A. 184, 115 A.L.R. 392. As was s......
-
Locke v. Stuart
...a decision in favor of the one who relies on it. Davis v. Loftin, Fla., 75 So.2d 813; Leonetti v. Boone, Fla., 74 So.2d 551; Johnson v. Mills, Fla., 37 So.2d 906. The presumption under Sec. 194.24, F.S., F.S.A., operates in respect to each of the statutory requirements preliminary to the is......