Raydel, Limited v. Medcalfe
Decision Date | 07 July 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 33496,33496 |
Citation | 178 So.2d 569 |
Parties | RAYDEL, LTD., a corporation, and Alice Ross Soper, Petitioners, v. Rachel MEDCALFE, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for petitioners.
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Alan R. Schwartz, Miami, for respondent.
Petitioners, Raydel, Ltd., a corporation, and Alice Ross Soper, seek certiorari review by us of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, in the case of Raydel, Ltd., v. Medcalfe, 162 So.2d 910 (Fla.App. 3rd 1964). The salient facts of the case appear in the opinion in the decision below as follows:
car to Florida. An understanding had been reached whereby the employees would have the right to use a second car owned by the Sopers for personal transportation during the stay in Florida.
'Mr. Soper died in February of 1958 but in December of that year the same arrangement as to the automobiles was made by Mrs. Soper with Mr. and Mrs. Medcalfe.
* * *
* * *
'We have already determined that the record supports without issue the fact that Mrs. Medcalfe received the enjoyment of the transportation afforded by the car as a part of her compensation for her job * * *.'
The automobile in question was entrusted to both Mr. and Mrs. Medcalfe jointly as husband and wife. From the quoted facts they were either co-bailees of the car or their personal use of it at the time of the accident was in furtherance of a common purpose; viz., a fishing trip. Under either relationship they had jointly been entrusted and had control and dominion of the car for their personal purposes at the time of the accident. The facts negative the idea the car was entrusted only to Mr. Medcalfe and that he negligently operated it while his wife was merely his guest passenger in the car, injuring her.
Under the circumstances of this case, the decision of the District Court of Appeal conflicts with Frankel v. Fleming, 69 So.2d 887 (Fla.1954). In that case Frankel rented a car from a rental car agency. He was the bailee of the car. While it was being negligently operated by one Wellener to whom Frankel had in turn entrusted the rental car, Fleming was injured. Fleming sued Frankel and recovered in the trial court. On appeal Frankel contended that as the bailee of the car he was not liable to Fleming but instead only the owner, the rental car agency, was liable to Fleming under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. In rejecting this contention this Court said:
'* * * we find no difficulty in now holding the appellant, a bailee, responsible in the instant case for injury caused by the one to whom he entrusted the car, especially where, to all intents and purposes, as will be seen by referring to the opinion in Fleming v. Alter [Fla., 69 So.2d 185], supra, that person was the bailee's spouse.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The decision below also appears to conflict with Martin v. Lloyd Motor Co., 119 So.2d 413 (Fla.App. 1st 1960). In that case a car owned by one Jones was delivered to Lloyd Motor Co. to sell for the account of Jones; Lloyd Motor Co. entrusted it to one Coker to drive in order for him to determine if he wanted to purchase it. Coker drove it negligently, causing the death of another. Decedent's heirs sued Lloyd Motor Co., but their complaint was dismissed by the trial court for failing to state a cause of action. On appeal of the case, the District Court of Appeal stated the question of law to be decided was:
'The question of law with which this court is confronted is whether a bailee having possession of and dominion and control over a motor vehicle may be liable in damages for the negligent operation of such vehicle by one to whom the bailee gives permission to operate it on the public roads and highways of this state.'
In answering this question the District Court of Appeal said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...negligently inflicted by a bailee upon a co-bailee. See Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 833 So.2d 109 (Fla.2002); Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965); May v. Palm Beach Chemical Co., 77 So.2d 468 (Fla.1955). And proof of express or implied consent is not required where an u......
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Clay
...pet. for review denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984); compare Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Almon, 559 So.2d 214 (Fla.1990); Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965), or were engaged in a "joint enterprise" with the driver. See Yokom v. Rodriguez, 41 So.2d 446 (Fla.1949); Kane v. Portwood......
-
STANDARD JURY INST.-CIVIL CASES (NO. 02-1)
...a third party, an owner is not liable for a personal injury negligently inflicted by a bailee upon a co-bailee. See Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965); May v. Palm Beach Chemical Co., 77 So.2d 468 (Fla.1955). There is a split of authority as to whether an owner is liable to ......
-
Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.
...her death. Accordingly, we consider whether the decedent enjoyed a right of action at her death in the instant case. In Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965), this Court held that an owner of a vehicle is not liable to a cobailee for injuries sustained by that bailee because of......