Mann v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44793,44793 |
| Citation | 300 So.2d 666 |
| Parties | Robert T. MANN et ux., Petitioners, v. The GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert Orseck, of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Beckham & McAliley, Miami, and Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan, Hapner & May, Tampa, for petitioners.
David L. Willing of Adams, George, Wood, Schulte & Thompson, Miami, for respondents.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of this District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 285 So.2d 681. Our jurisdiction is based on conflict 1 between the decision sought to be reviewed and State v. Putnam County Development Authority, 2 State v. Collier County, 3 Farish v. Lums, Inc., 4 inter alia.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On November 3, 1971, a motor vehicle owned by Respondent and operated with its permission and consent by an employee, acting in the scope of his employment, ran into a stopped motor vehicle, propelling it violently into the person of Petitioner, seriously injuring him. The accident occurred in Hillsborough County. Petitioners sued Respondent for damages, alleging negligence; they filed their complaint in Dade County. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the cause, claiming that venue was improper, and that proper venue was in Hillsborough County. Respondent also filed a separate motion to transfer or change venue to Hillsborough County, asserting that all witnesses and participants, including petitioners, resided or were situated in Hillsborough County, and that the evidence was there; the motion acknowledged that Respondent did business throughout Florida, but asserted that the employees and offices involved in the claim were in Hillsborough County. Petitioner filed his affidavit in opposition to these motions, giving the reasons he elected not to file his claim in Hillsborough County. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss or transfer the cause, whereupon, Respondent filed its interlocutory appeal. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed, holding that the motion of transfer should have been granted.
We reverse the District Court for reasons which will be set out below.
It is clear that, under Section 47.051, Florida Statutes, 5 Petitioners had multiple venue choices available to them and that they properly exercised their right of selection; that under Section 47.122, 6 Florida Statutes, the forum non conveniens statute, usually a cause may be transferred for the convenience of either the parties or the witnesses; and that Petitioners invoked Section 47.163, Florida Statutes, 7 in opposition to Respondent's motion to transfer. The District Court, in essence, nullified Section 47.163, Florida Statutes, holding that Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, being a later expression of legislative will, controls. We disagree in view of the well-settled rule that, where two statutes operate on the same subject without positive inconsistency or repugnancy, courts must construe them so as to preserve the force of both without destroying their evident intent, if possible. 8 It is an accepted maxim of statutory construction that a law should be construed together with and in harmony with any other statute relating to the same subject matter or having the same purpose, even though the statute were not enacted at the same time. 9 Of course, repeal by implication is not favored. 10 Applying these general principles of the specific facts of this case, we hold that, absent the necessary clear intention to repeal, the later discretionary general statute (§ 47.122, F.S., the forum non conveniens statute) is presumed to have made an exception to the prior specific, mandatory statute (§ 47.163, F.S.) which prohibits transfer of a case to the residence of either of the parties without their consent. We conclude that, when suing a foreign corporation, one has the right to bring one's action anywhere business is transacted in Florida 11 subject to the forum non conveniens statute 12 and further limited by the provisions of Section 47.163, Florida Statutes, 13 requiring the consent of the parties.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of this District Court is quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the order of the trial judge be reinstated.
It is so ordered.
1 Article V, Section 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breakstone v. MacKenzie
...courts must, if possible, construe them so as to preserve their force without destroying their evident intent. Mann v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla.1974); Graham v. Edwards, 472 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 482 So.2d 348 The supreme court has, by the promul......
-
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burns
...v. Ambassador Ins. Co., 456 So.2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Mann v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Requiring a defendant to meet the burden of showing there is a more convenient forum ensures the creation of r......
-
Littman v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., s. 81-847
...14 (Fla.1977); State ex rel. School Board of Martin County v. Department of Education, 317 So.2d 68 (Fla.1975); Mann v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla.1974). Courts must assume that later statutes were passed with knowledge of prior existing laws, and will favor a construc......
-
Limbaugh v. State
...the subpoena process they employ. Our task should be to construe and harmonize competing statutory provisions. Mann v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla.1974); Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); see also First Mortg. Corp. of Vero Beach v. Stellmon, 170 So.2d 302 (Fla.......
-
Statutory strict liability for environmental contamination: a private cause of action to remedy pollution or mere legislative jargon?
...(1995). (14) Compare FLA. STAT. [Subsection] 376.313 (1984 Supp.) with [Section] 376.205. (15) Mann v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 300 So. 2d 666 (Flat (16) The court in Italiano v. Jones, 908 F. Supp. 904 (M.D. Fla. 1995), refers to [Section] 376.205 when citing to Mosoufi to conclude ......