Stephen v. L. P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach, Inc.

417 So. 2d 778, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20755
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 3, 1982
DocketNo. 81-2264
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 417 So. 2d 778 (Stephen v. L. P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach, 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
Stephen v. L. P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach, Inc., 417 So. 2d 778, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20755 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

NESBITT, Judge.

Under the guise of purchasing a used Mercedes Benz from L. P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach (Evans), two thieves were given a test drive at which time they overpowered the sales representative and stole the vehicle. Later, a third party shipped the same vehicle1 to Haiti aboard the defendant’s shipping line. Evans, joined by his insurer, commenced the present action on the theory that the defendant’s failure to obtain a certificate of right of possession as required by Section 319.36, Florida Statutes (1979) imposed liability upon the shipping line for the loss of the vehicle. From an adverse summary judgment, the shipping line appeals. We affirm.

Unquestionably, Section 319.36, supra, imposed a duty upon the defendant to obtain a certificate of possession of title. Because we find that the statute was enacted to protect owners of vehicles from the loss of their goods,2 we hold that it was negligence per se not to abide by the statute. See deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 281 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973). We reject the defendant’s argument that its activities were only a remote cause of the plaintiff’s damages. To the contrary, we [780]*780find that the defendant’s acts directly and in natural and continuous sequence produced the damage incurred by the plaintiff. See Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 5.1(a). The duty imposed on the defendant by Section 319.36, supra, presupposes a theft of the vehicle prior to its presentment at the shipping line. It cannot be argued then, that that very theft precluded the defendant’s liability.

Consequently, we find that the summary judgment must be affirmed.

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

Related

Motors Insurance Corp. v. Heavy Lift Services, Inc.
545 So. 2d 389 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Ivaran Lines, Inc. v. Waicman
461 So. 2d 123 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 So. 2d 778, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-v-l-p-evans-motors-of-west-palm-beach-inc-fladistctapp-1982.