Gandy v. Outlaw

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gandy v. Outlaw

417 So. 2d 1134, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20845

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1328

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 1134 (Gandy v. Outlaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gandy v. Outlaw, 417 So. 2d 1134, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20845 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

The Gandys filed suit against E. R. Outlaw and her insurance carrier seeking to recover for losses sustained when Mrs. Outlaw’s vehicle rear-ended Gandy’s vehicle. Both sides stipulated that Mrs. Outlaw lost consciousness immediately prior to the impact and that such loss of consciousness was unforeseeable. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Outlaw and her insurance carrier. We affirm.

Under Baker v. Hausman, 68 So.2d 572 (Fla.1953), and its progeny, the unforeseeable loss of consciousness while driving is a complete defense to the charge of negligence and gross negligence. While acknowledging that the trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment was proper under Baker, the Gandys nevertheless assert that liability should be placed upon Mrs. Outlaw claiming that she was the “least innocent” of two innocent parties. The Gandys have requested this court to revisit the existing law and either reverse the lower tribunal’s ruling or certify the issue as one of great public importance.¹

We are not disposed to reverse the trial court. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). Further, we do not believe the question is one of great public importance and therefore decline to certify it as requested. While we have great sympathy for the Gandys, we cannot conclude there is any reason to change a rational rule of law. If Mrs. Outlaw could not anticipate, foresee, or prevent the accident, we can urge no reason to impose liability upon her. As the supreme court observed in Bridges v. Speer, 79 So.2d 679 (Fla.1955):

It is not even simple negligence if one has a sudden attack, loses control of his car and causes an accident if he had no premonition or warning. In such event the very foundation of negligence — knowledge and hence foreseeability — is absent. (emphasis added)

AFFIRMED.

SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

The Gandys filed suit against E. R. Outlaw and her insurance carrier seeking to recover for losses sustained when Mrs. Outlaw’s vehicle rear-ended Gandy’s vehicle. Both sides stipulated that Mrs. Outlaw lost consciousness immediately prior to the impact and that such loss of consciousness was unforeseeable. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Outlaw and her insurance carrier. We affirm.

Under Baker v. Hausman, 68 So.2d 572 (Fla.1953), and its progeny, the unforeseeable loss of consciousness while driving is a complete defense to the charge of negligence and gross negligence. While acknowledging that the trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment was proper under Baker, the Gandys nevertheless assert that liability should be placed upon Mrs. Outlaw claiming that she was the “least innocent” of two innocent parties. The Gandys have requested this court to revisit the existing law and either reverse the lower tribunal’s ruling or certify the issue as one of great public importance.¹

We are not disposed to reverse the trial court. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). Further, we do not believe the question is one of great public importance and therefore decline to certify it as requested. While we have great sympathy for the Gandys, we cannot conclude there is any reason to change a rational rule of law. If Mrs. Outlaw could not anticipate, foresee, or prevent the accident, we can urge no reason to impose liability upon her. As the supreme court observed in Bridges v. Speer, 79 So.2d 679 (Fla.1955):

It is not even simple negligence if one has a sudden attack, loses control of his car and causes an accident if he had no premonition or warning. In such event the very foundation of negligence — knowledge and hence foreseeability — is absent. (emphasis added)

AFFIRMED.

SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 So. 2d 1134, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gandy-v-outlaw-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack