Webster v. Sneider

138 So. 755, 103 Fla. 1131
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 7, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 138 So. 755 (Webster v. Sneider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Webster v. Sneider, 138 So. 755, 103 Fla. 1131 (Fla. 1932).

Opinions

Whitfield, J.

The plaintiff married the defendant’s *1132 son who is alleged to have negligently injured the plaintiff while acting as the defendant’s servant, so as to render the defendant liable in damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior; but such marriage does not affect the cause of action which the plaintiff has against both the defendant and her son acting as defendant’s servant, for damages because of the negligent injury. The marriage of the plaintiff to the defendant’s son and servant abates the plaintiff’s right of action against the servant whom she married, though the marriage does not create a relation between the plaintiff and the defendant that suspends or abates the plaintiff’s right of action against the defendant; nor does the marriage affect the servant’s liability to his principal who is the defendant below.

If the defendant’s son and servant had been duly adjudged not guilty of the alleged negligent injury to the plaintiff, the defendant would not be liable, for the reason that if the servant was not negligent his principal is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Williams v. Hines, 80 Fla. 690, 86 So. 695.

The marriage of the plaintiff to the defendant’s servant does not determine or affect the alleged negligence of the servant in injuring the plaintiff, so the cause of action and the right' of action of the plaintiff against the defendant for her servant's alleged negligent injury to the plaintiff remains until the action is terminated.

There was judgment for defendant on the pleadings and stipulation. The plaintiff took writ of error.

Reversed.

Ellis, Beown and Davis, J.J., concur.

Buford, C.J., and Terrell, J., dissent.

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

Related

Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Alley
728 So. 2d 272 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
West v. West
372 So. 2d 170 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Paoli v. Shor
345 So. 2d 789 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Gaston v. Pittman
224 So. 2d 326 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1969)
Angela Dorothy Gaston v. John Pittman
405 F.2d 869 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Gaston v. Pittman
285 F. Supp. 645 (N.D. Florida, 1968)
Amendola v. Amendola
121 So. 2d 805 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Amendola v. Amendola
118 So. 2d 13 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1960)
Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp.
141 A.2d 34 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)
Koplik v. CP Trucking Corp.
135 A.2d 555 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Alexander v. Alexander
140 F. Supp. 925 (W.D. South Carolina, 1956)
Koenigs v. Travis
75 N.W.2d 478 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
Shiver v. Sessions
80 So. 2d 905 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
Bohenek v. Niedzwiecki
113 A.2d 509 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)
Furey v. Furey
71 S.E.2d 191 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1952)
Corren v. Corren
47 So. 2d 774 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
Staats v. Co-Operative Transit Co.
24 S.E.2d 916 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1943)
Riegger v. Bruton Brewing Co.
16 A.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1940)
Kenan v. Withers
188 So. 95 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Hawkins v. Hawkins
177 So. 274 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 So. 755, 103 Fla. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-sneider-fla-1932.