Gulick v. Whitaker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gulick v. Whitaker

102 So. 2d 847, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2871

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1958

DocketNo. 26

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 So. 2d 847 (Gulick v. Whitaker) 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

Gulick v. Whitaker, 102 So. 2d 847, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2871 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a negligence action entered after a verdict in favor of the defendant, Pat Whitaker. Mary E. Gulick, and husband, Glenn G. Gulick, were suing the defendant for damages growing out of a head-on collision between a car driven by the defendant and a car driven by plaintiff-husband which, however, was owned by plaintiff-wife and in which she rode as a passenger. Plaintiffs appeal.

No question is raised by the appellant as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.

Three basic points are stated by the appellants, but the only one which we shall consider is:

“Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that should they find plaintiff-driver, Mr. Gulick, guilty of contributory negligence, then plaintiff-passenger-owner, Mrs. Gulick, cannot recover.”

Subsequent to the trial of this case, the Supreme Court of Florida, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Thornal, held that an owner-wife could not recover in a negligence action where she was riding with her husband and he was guilty of contributory negligence, as his negligence would be imputed to her. The Court was careful to emphasize that the negligence of the husband in an automobile negligence action was based on the application of the principle of respondeat superior. When one permits another to operate his automobile under his license, he becomes as a matter of law the principal and the driver becomes his agent for this purpose.

Under the decision in Weber v. Porco, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 146, the negligence of the husband is not imputed to the wife merely because of the relationship of husband and wife. The same burden would be imposed if her car was driven by any one else.

We, therefore, hold on the authority of Weber v. Porco, supra, that the lower court should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

KANNER, C. J., and STEPHENSON, Associate Judge, concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a negligence action entered after a verdict in favor of the defendant, Pat Whitaker. Mary E. Gulick, and husband, Glenn G. Gulick, were suing the defendant for damages growing out of a head-on collision between a car driven by the defendant and a car driven by plaintiff-husband which, however, was owned by plaintiff-wife and in which she rode as a passenger. Plaintiffs appeal.

No question is raised by the appellant as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.

Three basic points are stated by the appellants, but the only one which we shall consider is:

“Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that should they find plaintiff-driver, Mr. Gulick, guilty of contributory negligence, then plaintiff-passenger-owner, Mrs. Gulick, cannot recover.”

Subsequent to the trial of this case, the Supreme Court of Florida, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Thornal, held that an owner-wife could not recover in a negligence action where she was riding with her husband and he was guilty of contributory negligence, as his negligence would be imputed to her. The Court was careful to emphasize that the negligence of the husband in an automobile negligence action was based on the application of the principle of respondeat superior. When one permits another to operate his automobile under his license, he becomes as a matter of law the principal and the driver becomes his agent for this purpose.

Under the decision in Weber v. Porco, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 146, the negligence of the husband is not imputed to the wife merely because of the relationship of husband and wife. The same burden would be imposed if her car was driven by any one else.

We, therefore, hold on the authority of Weber v. Porco, supra, that the lower court should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

KANNER, C. J., and STEPHENSON, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 2d 847, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulick-v-whitaker-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack