Gonzalez v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

784 So. 2d 450, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14592, 1999 WL 993085

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 3, 1999

DocketNo. 99-824

StatusPublished

This text of 784 So. 2d 450 (Gonzalez v. Enterprise Leasing Co.) 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

Gonzalez v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 784 So. 2d 450, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14592, 1999 WL 993085 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order, following a bench trial finding that appellant, Jose A. Gonzalez, was precluded from suing the appellee, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, for injuries he incurred in a car accident where he was a passenger and a listed additional driver in a rented Enterprise vehicle.

Based on the joint stipulated statement of facts, we find that the trial court had substantial competent evidence before it to find that Gonzalez was jointly entrusted with the Enterprise vehicle and therefore the trial court properly found that Gonzalez was precluded from suing Enterprise as the owner of the vehicle. See Bijlani v. Pioneer House Assocs., 719 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(where trial court’s ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence, appellate court must affirm) (citing Ferry v. Abrams, 679 So.2d 80, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order, following a bench trial finding that appellant, Jose A. Gonzalez, was precluded from suing the appellee, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, for injuries he incurred in a car accident where he was a passenger and a listed additional driver in a rented Enterprise vehicle.

Based on the joint stipulated statement of facts, we find that the trial court had substantial competent evidence before it to find that Gonzalez was jointly entrusted with the Enterprise vehicle and therefore the trial court properly found that Gonzalez was precluded from suing Enterprise as the owner of the vehicle. See Bijlani v. Pioneer House Assocs., 719 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(where trial court’s ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence, appellate court must affirm) (citing Ferry v. Abrams, 679 So.2d 80, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

784 So. 2d 450, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14592, 1999 WL 993085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-enterprise-leasing-co-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack