Wummer v. Lowary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wummer v. Lowary

441 So. 2d 1151, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24103

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1983

DocketNo. 83-125

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 441 So. 2d 1151 (Wummer v. Lowary) 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

Wummer v. Lowary, 441 So. 2d 1151, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24103 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal was taken from the trial court’s order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer’s summary judgment motion. We reverse.

Wummer refinanced one of her employee’s repossessed Camaro. She deducted the monthly payments from the employee’s paycheck and the employee maintained control over the car. Lowary was injured while a passenger in the Camaro. Suit was filed against Wummer as the owner of the vehicle.

Beneficial ownership carries with it liability for damages which arise from an automobile’s negligent operation. Harrell v. Sellars, 424 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA [1152]*11521983); Hicks v. Land, 117 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); and, Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Wum-mer’s employee had sole possession of the auto. Wummer saw it for the first time after the accident occurred. She was not the beneficial owner of the Camaro. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer⅛ motion for summary judgment.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appeal was taken from the trial court’s order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer’s summary judgment motion. We reverse.

Wummer refinanced one of her employee’s repossessed Camaro. She deducted the monthly payments from the employee’s paycheck and the employee maintained control over the car. Lowary was injured while a passenger in the Camaro. Suit was filed against Wummer as the owner of the vehicle.

Beneficial ownership carries with it liability for damages which arise from an automobile’s negligent operation. Harrell v. Sellars, 424 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA [1152]*11521983); Hicks v. Land, 117 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); and, Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Wum-mer’s employee had sole possession of the auto. Wummer saw it for the first time after the accident occurred. She was not the beneficial owner of the Camaro. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer⅛ motion for summary judgment.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 So. 2d 1151, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wummer-v-lowary-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack