Outzen v. Bowen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Outzen v. Bowen

389 So. 2d 1104, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18014

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1980

DocketNo. UU-37

StatusPublished

This text of 389 So. 2d 1104 (Outzen v. Bowen) 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

Outzen v. Bowen, 389 So. 2d 1104, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18014 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Outzen appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, Jack Eckerd Corporation, urging there are genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by a jury. We agree and reverse.

The facts as presented give rise to a jury question on the issue of whether Ms. Bowen was within the scope of her employment when she had the automobile accident. Although the facts themselves are not in conflict, they will permit of different reasonable inferences. Jacobi v. Claude Noian, Inc., 122 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc., 256 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We cannot agree that movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cohen v. Sloan, 190 So. 14 (Fla.1939), Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So.2d 36 (Fla.1965), Thurston v. Morrison, 141 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), Whetzel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 266 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and remanded for a full trial on the issue.

MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur. THOMPSON, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Outzen appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee, Jack Eckerd Corporation, urging there are genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by a jury. We agree and reverse.

The facts as presented give rise to a jury question on the issue of whether Ms. Bowen was within the scope of her employment when she had the automobile accident. Although the facts themselves are not in conflict, they will permit of different reasonable inferences. Jacobi v. Claude Noian, Inc., 122 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc., 256 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We cannot agree that movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cohen v. Sloan, 190 So. 14 (Fla.1939), Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So.2d 36 (Fla.1965), Thurston v. Morrison, 141 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), Whetzel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 266 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and remanded for a full trial on the issue.

MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur. THOMPSON, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 So. 2d 1104, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outzen-v-bowen-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack