McDougald v. Couey, (1942)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 13
Judges: THOMAS, J.:
Attorneys: Maguire, Voorhis Wells, and Baxter Clayton, for appellant.
Fielding Duncan, for appellee.
Filed: Mar. 24, 1942
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Many questions are presented for determination in this appeal but from a perusal of the record and the briefs it seems necessary to decide only two of them. This may be done by examining Section 4372, C.G.L., 1927, and analyzing the testimony of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, relevant to the issue formed by the declaration and one of the pleas. Plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident in which the driver to whom the car had been entrusted was killed, brought suit against the
Summary: Many questions are presented for determination in this appeal but from a perusal of the record and the briefs it seems necessary to decide only two of them. This may be done by examining Section 4372, C.G.L., 1927, and analyzing the testimony of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, relevant to the issue formed by the declaration and one of the pleas. Plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident in which the driver to whom the car had been entrusted was killed, brought suit against the ..
More
According to my interpretation of Chapter 18033 Acts of 1937 commonly known as the guest statute,
both the title and body of the act relate to liability of the owner or operator. This plaintiff was not in privity with defendant (owner). Plaintiff was a guest or paid passenger, as the evidence might disclose, of the operator. Since he made no claim of payment to defendant he was required to make a case by alleging and proving more than simple negligence to recover.
Source: CourtListener
