CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...llee Jack Strickland stole it and subsequently negligently collided with a truck owned by appellant. Appellant seeks to hold S.J.G. Corporation liable for its damages under either of two theories. The first theory is negligence per se, predicated on Section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides in pertinent part: "No person driving or in charge of any motor vehicle except a licensed delivery truck or other delivery vehicle while making deliveries, shall permit it to stand unattended...
...We are not aware of any case, either in Florida or in any other state, and none has been cited to us by appellant, which has imposed liability on an automobile owner under these circumstances, and we see no justification for doing so here. While Kenney may well be liable to appellant by virtue of his alleged violation of section 316.1975, S.J.G....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 142703
...Eaton Construction Company appeals the denial of its motion for new trial in this wrongful death action brought by appellee Ronald Edwards, as personal representative. Eaton contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1989), was evidence of negligence because that statute was inapplicable to the facts of this case....
...ase to a jury on a theory of negligence regarding Reteneller's high-speed chase of Davis. Subsequently, in Reteneller v. Putnam,
589 So.2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied,
599 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1992) we specifically addressed the applicability of section
316.1975, which provides as follows:
316.1975 Unattended motor vehicle....
...No vehicle shall be permitted to stand unattended upon any perceptible grade without stopping the engine and effectively setting the brake thereon and turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the street. In Reteneller, we stated that the trial court correctly held that section 316.1975 was inapplicable to this case because the two vehicles were stolen from a private, posted construction site; [1] however, we reversed the trial court's order granting Eaton's post-trial motion for directed verdict, concluding that Pu...
...We remanded this cause for the trial court to reinstate the jury verdict and to consider the pending motion for new trial. [2] On remand, the trial court denied Eaton's motion for new trial which alleged that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that a violation of section 316.1975 was evidence of negligence....
...The jury also found, however, that Reteneller did not have permission to take the vehicle and engage in the high-speed chase. Thus, the jury must have based Eaton's negligence on Eaton's leaving the pickup truck unattended with the keys in the ignition. [4] The jury instruction concerning section 316.1975, therefore, played a crucial role in the jury's determination that Eaton was negligent....
...This holding in Reteneller is consistent with our earlier opinion in Putnam, in which we reversed a summary judgment and held that the case should be submitted to a jury based upon common-law principles of negligence and foresee-ability without any mention of section 316.1975....
...le while it was unattended. It is apparent that the parties and the trial court tried this action as a negligence claim so that the facts creating a jury issue of negligence remain and can be weighed by the jury without it considering a violation of section 316.1975 as evidence of negligence....
...or express consent of the parties. [6] On remand, the trial court shall allow the parties to amend their pleadings, if they desire to do so, for the sole purpose of crystallizing the issues concerning this common-law action without any reference to section 316.1975. We conclude that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury concerning section 316.1975 and that the trial court further erred when it denied appellant's motion for new trial based upon this erroneous jury instruction....
...[2] We remanded this case for consideration of the pending motion for new trial in an order dated January 8, 1992, which was entered subsequent to our decision in Reteneller v. Putnam,
589 So.2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). [3] The trial court, after it charged the jury on several traffic statutes, including section
316.1975, charged the jury as follows: Violation of one or more of these statutes is evidence of negligence....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2439
...Haskins immediately hollered at Smith and ran toward the truck. Smith hit Haskins with his left hand, threw Haskins from the truck and drove off with the boat in tow. Linda and Katherine remained in the boat. Eventually, the boat became separated from the trailer, rolled over and injured both women. Section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1981), reads in pertinent part: No person driving or in charge of any motor vehicle except a licensed delivery truck or other delivery vehicle while making deliveries, shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key......
...Appellant had no such notice. In fact, there was no testimony as to any unusual prior criminal activity at the location. See Paterson v. Deeb,
472 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The vehicle was attended; therefore, the appellee should not have benefit of section
316.1975, Florida Statutes....
