Mathis v. Virgin, No. 64-343

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBefore BARKDULL; BARKDULL
Citation167 So.2d 897
PartiesBarbara MATHIS, a minor, by her father and next friend, Roswell E. Mathis and Roswell E. Mathis, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Herbert W. VIRGIN, Jr., Defendant.
Decision Date13 October 1964
Docket NumberNo. 64-343

Page 897

167 So.2d 897
Barbara MATHIS, a minor, by her father and next friend, Roswell E. Mathis and Roswell E. Mathis, individually, Plaintiffs,
v.
Herbert W. VIRGIN, Jr., Defendant.
No. 64-343.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 13, 1964.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1964.

Ross, Reinhardt & Goodman, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for plaintiffs.

Carey, Terry, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Stephens and Edward Perse, Miami, for defendant.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.

BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

The following question has been certified to this court for determination, pursuant to

Page 898

the applicable rule pertaining thereto, 1 to wit:

'Does the satisfaction of a judgment by the plaintiff against the defendant owner and operator of an automobile for injuries received in an automobile accident discharge from liability in a subsequent suit an allegedly negligent defendant physician who treated the plaintiff for the injuries received in that automobile accident, or is the responsibility of the physician as a tort feasor discharged only pro-tanto by virtue of Section 54.28 of the Florida Statutes?'

The circuit judge certified that the question of law above referred to is determinative of the cause; is without controlling precedent in this State; that it can be answered without regard to other issues in the cause and without affecting the jurisdiction of the circuit or this court; and that an answer to said question will ultimately determine the final disposition of the cause. Therefore, it is our view that same is entitled to an answer. See: Scott v. Scott, Fla.App.,1950, 45 So.2d 878; Forsyth v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla.App.,App.1964, 162 So.2d 916.

From the record presented to us, it appears that the question arose out of the following factual situation: The minor plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident when the vehicle in which she was riding [driven by one William Rufus Johnson] collided with a vehicle driven by Frank Leroy Creech. Thereafter, through the plaintiff, Roswell E. Mathis as her next friend, she instituted a common law action, to recover for injuries sustained in said accident, against William Johnson and Julia Johnson, as Guardians of the person of William Rufus Johnson, a minor; and Charles M. Baldwin, as Guardian of the property of William Rufus Johnson; and Julia Johnson, individually; and William Rufus Johnson, a minor, individually; and Myrtle Creech and Frank...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, Nos. 73--217
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 7, 1974
    ...or several, including vicarious tort feasors. Hertz Corporation v. Hellens, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 73; Mathis v. Virgin, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 897, cert. den., Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 30; Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 727, cert. dis., Fla.1972, 262 So.2d Mo......
  • Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd., No. 89-0366-CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • February 16, 1990
    ...to situations involving subsequent medical malpractice, as plaintiffs argue. Accordingly, plaintiffs' reliance on Mathis v. Virgin, 167 So.2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 174 So.2d 30 (Fla.1965), for the proposition that a general release only releases pro tanto the joint tortfeaso......
  • Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 46553
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 28, 1977
    ...also that he was not a joint tortfeasor. There is decisional conflict with the holding of the Third District Court in Mathis v. Virgin, 167 So.2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). We have jurisdiction. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida The record reflects that an automobile owned by respondent Hertz......
  • Walker v. U-Haul Co., Inc., U-HAUL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 20, 1974
    ...considered only as a pro tanto release under Section 768.041, F.S. Appellant also relies upon the case of Mathis v. Virgin, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 897 (cert. den. Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 30). Both of these cited cases are readily distinguishable on the facts, and no question is raised in the i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, Nos. 73--217
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 7, 1974
    ...or several, including vicarious tort feasors. Hertz Corporation v. Hellens, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 73; Mathis v. Virgin, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 897, cert. den., Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 30; Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 727, cert. dis., Fla.1972, 262 So.2d Mo......
  • Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd., No. 89-0366-CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • February 16, 1990
    ...to situations involving subsequent medical malpractice, as plaintiffs argue. Accordingly, plaintiffs' reliance on Mathis v. Virgin, 167 So.2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 174 So.2d 30 (Fla.1965), for the proposition that a general release only releases pro tanto the joint tortfeaso......
  • Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 46553
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 28, 1977
    ...also that he was not a joint tortfeasor. There is decisional conflict with the holding of the Third District Court in Mathis v. Virgin, 167 So.2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). We have jurisdiction. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida The record reflects that an automobile owned by respondent Hertz......
  • Walker v. U-Haul Co., Inc., U-HAUL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 20, 1974
    ...considered only as a pro tanto release under Section 768.041, F.S. Appellant also relies upon the case of Mathis v. Virgin, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 897 (cert. den. Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 30). Both of these cited cases are readily distinguishable on the facts, and no question is raised in the i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT