Mainer v. Cambron Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1970
• Docket Number: No. 69--448,69--448
• Citation: 237 So.2d 275
• Parties: Ruth P. MAINER, Appellant, v. CAMBRON CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 275

237 So.2d 275

Ruth P. MAINER, Appellant, v. CAMBRON CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 69--448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 29, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1970.

T. G. LaGrone, Orlando, for appellant.

David Best and Robert O. Stripling, Jr., of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee.

MacMILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge.

This appeal is from a summary judgment entered on behalf of the defendant appellee as based upon the issues framed by the pleadings, depositions, interrogatories and answers thereto appearing in the court file. For convenience, the appellant will be referred to herein as plaintiff and appellee as defendant. The trial court found in its summary judgment that there was no issue as to any material fact and that the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. In its summary judgment the court ruled that at the time and place of plaintiff's alleged injury, she was a trespasser as to the defendant and that there was no deviation from any duty owed to the plaintiff to refrain from said injury to the plaintiff. We affirm.

The accident upon which this action is predicated occurred in Orlando, Florida, when the plaintiff sustained personal injuries resulting from her falling out of a 1955 Chevrolet pick-up truck owned by the defendant. At the time of the accident the said truck was in the process of making a left-hand turn and was operated by the plaintiff's husband. He was employed as a mechanic by the defendant and was assigned the use of the truck. The plaintiff was riding in the cab as a passenger. At the time of the accident plaintiff and her husband were returning home from picking up some medicine at a drugstore for one of their children. No real emergency situation for the need of such medicine was presented, and this occasion was the first and only time the plaintiff had ridden in the truck.

The vehicle had a defective right door that had rusted to such an extent that the hinges were affected and the door at times would become unlatched and swing open without warning. The plaintiff was unaware of this defective condition of the door, although her husband was fully aware of it and had actually attempted to repair it. In addition, he had reported its condition to a supervisor prior to the accident and was instructed to have it repaired at a welding shop. Thereupon, he had some work done on it at such shop without satisfactory results. He informed his supervisor of the said continuing defect and was instructed to continue to use the truck as it would soon be replaced.

An established company policy precluded the use of company vehicles, including the truck in question, for personal reasons by employees unless such use was during an assignment out of the area of Orlando. Transporting passengers other than company employees was also prohibited, although it is noted plaintiff's husband denies that he was aware of this latter regulation of the defendant. No written copy of the company's policy, rules or regulations was introduced into evidence and the pertinent contents of the same were established by oral testimony of the supervisor of ...