Santos v. Zenz

Florida Circuit Courts

Santos v. Zenz

36 Fla. Supp. 2d 40

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1989

DocketCase No. 89-037-AP

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Fla. Supp. 2d 40 (Santos v. Zenz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santos v. Zenz, 36 Fla. Supp. 2d 40 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the authority of Thomas v Atlantic Associates, Inc., 226 SO.2d 100 (Fla. 1969). In Thomas, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled tht the issue of whether a daughter was guilty of “a species of conversion or theft” in taking the car keys and driving the car to the grocery store, as well as the issue of whether the father was negligent in leaving the keys on the dresser, arising under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, were issues of fact to be resolved by the jury, thus precluding the entry of summary judgment. Following a non-jury [41]*41trial, the Court below, sitting as the trier of fact, resolved similar issues in Appellee’s favor. The Court’s findings and judgment are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and we are not prepared to disturb them. Marrone v Miami National Bank, 507 So.2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Randy International Ltd. v American Excess Corp., 501 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on the authority of Thomas v Atlantic Associates, Inc., 226 SO.2d 100 (Fla. 1969). In Thomas, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled tht the issue of whether a daughter was guilty of “a species of conversion or theft” in taking the car keys and driving the car to the grocery store, as well as the issue of whether the father was negligent in leaving the keys on the dresser, arising under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, were issues of fact to be resolved by the jury, thus precluding the entry of summary judgment. Following a non-jury [41]*41trial, the Court below, sitting as the trier of fact, resolved similar issues in Appellee’s favor. The Court’s findings and judgment are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and we are not prepared to disturb them. Marrone v Miami National Bank, 507 So.2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Randy International Ltd. v American Excess Corp., 501 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Fla. Supp. 2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-zenz-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack