Sykes v. Babijuice Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1953 |
| Citation | 63 So.2d 65 |
| Parties | SYKES v. BABIJUICE CORP. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bryant & Martin, Lakeland, and Pleus, Edwards & Rush, Orlando, for appellant.
Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee.
Babijuice Corporation, the defendant below, employed one Holt as a night watchman to protect its citrus packing plant. Holt's duties required him to stay on the premises and prevent the removal or molestation of defendant's property. According to the record Holt was not authorized to drive defendant's motor vehicles. He did not have a driver's license, had been refused employment as a truck driver, and was not supposed to drive defendant's trucks other than when absolutely necessary to move them from one place to another in the parking area.
One night Holt, without the express or implied permission of the defendant, took one of defendant's trucks from the parking area and drove from the premises on a personal mission. While traveling down the highway he collided with a motor vehicle in which one Sykes was riding, causing injuries to Sykes from which he died.
The complaint in the instant case was filed by Sykes' father against Babijuice Corporation to recover damages for the negligence of Holt in operating the motor vehicle owned by the defendant. The answer filed by the defendant denied, among other things, the Holt was acting as the agent for the defendant at the time of the accident or that he had any authority to use defendant's motor vehicle on the highway. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Subsequently the verdict was set aside and a directed verdict for the defendant was entered. This appeal is from the final judgment entered upon the directed verdict.
The basic issue for determination is whether under the facts stated the defendant may be held liable in damages for the alleged negligent acts of the nightwatchman Holt.
We find no error in the judgment appealed from. It is plain that Holt was not acting within the scope of his employment when he took the defendant's truck from the premises. It is plain, moreover, that Holt was not using the motor vehicle at the time of the accident with defendant's knowledge or consent, express or implied. There is no showing that prior to the accident Holt had ever taken a motor vehicle of the defendant from the parking area and operated it on the highway with the knowledge of the defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. Susco Car Rental System of Fla., Inc.
...without the owner's consent. The emphasis upon consent as an element necessary for liability was again illustrated in Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 65. There the Court held an owner was not liable where a night watchman without permission, expressed or implied, took one of de......
-
Ivey v. National Fisheries, Inc., 68-101
...premises and the tort occurred outside this boundary. Therefore, that fact served to preclude the employer's liability. Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 65; Keller v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d But, once it has been established that the employee has the e......
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. S. J. G. Corp., A-C
...realize that the criminal act in conjunction with the person's negligence will result in a loss. On the other hand, in Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., 63 So.2d 65 (Fla.1953), the corporate owner was held not liable for damages arising out of the use on the highway of one of its trucks by the nigh......
-
Chase & Co. v. Benefield
...is liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle by such employee on a public highway? This is not a case like that of Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla., 63 So.2d 65. In that case Holt was employed as a night watchman and not as a driver of a truck, or automobile. He was employed to protec......