Meyer v. L. P. Evans Motors, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meyer v. L. P. Evans Motors, Inc.

132 So. 2d 19, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2833

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1961

DocketNo. 60-708

StatusPublished

This text of 132 So. 2d 19 (Meyer v. L. P. Evans Motors, Inc.) 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

Meyer v. L. P. Evans Motors, Inc., 132 So. 2d 19, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2833 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a summary final judgment for the plaintiff in an action by an employer against its employee claiming negligent loss of the employer’s money by the employee.¹ The negligence alleged was that the defendant-employee held the employer’s money overnight, taking the money from the premises of the employer, contrary to instructions which were to deposit the money with the salesman in charge of the place of business. The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and set forth affirmative defenses as follows: (1) the plaintiff contributed to the negligence by its failure to provide proper facilities for the safekeeping of money overnight; (2) the plaintiff waived defendant’s failure to follow the instruction by plaintiff’s consent to defendant’s violation thereof.

The summary final judgment appealed was based upon three affidavits. Two of these were submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment and set forth the existence of the instruction and defendant’s admitted violation thereof. No reference was made to the affirmative defenses.² The affidavit of the appellant was submitted in support of his own motion for summary judgment. In it he admitted the instruction some 18 months prior to the loss, set forth his frequent violation of the instruction and that such violations were necessary because of the late hours that he worked.

The court, determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact, entered the judgment appealed. It is apparent that although each party moved for a summary judgment there were, in actuality, genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of negligence on the part of the defendant and the existence of a waiver of the instructions by custom and practice; therefore, the entry of the summary final judgment was error and the cause must be reversed for trial by jury.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a summary final judgment for the plaintiff in an action by an employer against its employee claiming negligent loss of the employer’s money by the employee.¹ The negligence alleged was that the defendant-employee held the employer’s money overnight, taking the money from the premises of the employer, contrary to instructions which were to deposit the money with the salesman in charge of the place of business. The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and set forth affirmative defenses as follows: (1) the plaintiff contributed to the negligence by its failure to provide proper facilities for the safekeeping of money overnight; (2) the plaintiff waived defendant’s failure to follow the instruction by plaintiff’s consent to defendant’s violation thereof.

The summary final judgment appealed was based upon three affidavits. Two of these were submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment and set forth the existence of the instruction and defendant’s admitted violation thereof. No reference was made to the affirmative defenses.² The affidavit of the appellant was submitted in support of his own motion for summary judgment. In it he admitted the instruction some 18 months prior to the loss, set forth his frequent violation of the instruction and that such violations were necessary because of the late hours that he worked.

The court, determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact, entered the judgment appealed. It is apparent that although each party moved for a summary judgment there were, in actuality, genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of negligence on the part of the defendant and the existence of a waiver of the instructions by custom and practice; therefore, the entry of the summary final judgment was error and the cause must be reversed for trial by jury.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 2d 19, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-l-p-evans-motors-inc-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack