Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1953 |
| Citation | 67 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | RUTHERFORD et al. v. ALLEN PARKER CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Philip Medvin, Miami, for appellants.
Roberts & Strickland, Miami, for appellee.
The point for determination in this case is whether or not the holder of a retain-title or conditional sale contract on an automobile is liable in damages to a third party for injuries sustained in the negligent operation of said automobile by the purchaser.
There is no dispute about the facts. No question as to non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is raised. It is shown that the action was brought directly against the holder of the retain-title or conditional sale contract and not against the purchaser and operator of the automobile.
On a motion to dismiss complaint the trial court answered the question presented in the negative. The purpose of Section 319.22(2), F.S.A., as follows:
'(2) An owner who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of a motor vehicle and has delivered possession thereof to a purchaser shall not by reason of any of the provisions of this law, be deemed the owner of such vehicle so as to be subject to civil liability for the operation of such vehicle thereafter by another when such owner has fulfilled either of the following requirements:
'(a) When such owner has made proper endorsement and delivery of the certificate of title as provided by this law.
'(b) When such owner has delivered to the commissioner, or placed in the United States mail, addressed to the commissioner, either certificate of title properly endorsed, or the following notice:
Motor Vehicle Commissioner
I have this day sold and delivered to ________ (Name and Address of New Owner), Motor
Vehicle, Certificate of Title No. _____
Make _____ Type _____ Model _____
Serial No. _____ Motor No. _____ Year Made _____
Date _____
________ (Former Owner)
________ (Address of Former Owner)'
to relieve the owner of an automobile from civil liability for its operation by another when said act is complied with by issuing and endorsing certificate of title as provided therein to the motor vehicle commissioner. There is no suggestion here that said act was not fully complied with.
Appellants contend that the ruling of this Court in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So.2d 673 is more in point and is controlling. We have examined this case and it seems to have turned on the fact that there was no showing that the automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. Taylor–Christensen
...Evans has not complied with. The provisions of this section have been construed in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So.2d 673,Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So.2d 763, and Platt v. Dreka, Fla., 79 So.2d 670, opinion filed April 6, 1955. In the Ragg and Platt cases, supra, this court was car......
-
Palmer v. R. S. Evans, Jacksonville, Inc.
...S. Evans has not complied with. The provisions of this section have been construed in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So.2d 673, Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So.2d 763, and Platt v. Dreka, Fla., 79 So.2d 670, opinion filed April 6, 1955. In the Ragg and Platt cases, supra, this court was......
-
Mary Jo Bowen As Pers. Representative v. Taylor-Christensen
...Evans has not complied with.[1] The provisions of this section have been construed in Ragg v. Hurd, Fla., 60 So.2d 673, Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., Fla., 67 So.2d 763, and Platt v. Dreka, Fla., 79 So.2d 670, opinion filed April 6, 1955. In the Ragg and Platt cases, supra, this court was......
-
Aurbach v. Gallina
...retains legal title to the vehicle as security for the payment of the purchase price.3 See Kraemer, 572 So.2d at 1365; Rutherford v. Allen Parker Co., 67 So.2d 763 (1953). In Metzel v. Robinson, 102 So.2d 385, 385-86 (Fla.1958), the Court made it clear that, absent a conditional sales agree......