CopyCited 54 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 3 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1360, 19 Fed. R. Serv. 33, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23412
...spur track. The train ran off the spur track, across a road, over an adjacent lot, and into the warehouse. Borden and Aetna 1 filed suit against FEC, Spak, Harrison, and Frost. Frost's parents were also named as defendants pursuant to Fla.Stat. Sec. 741.24 because Frost was a minor when the accident occurred....
...verally liable for the entire amount of damages recoverable by Borden. 11 The parties also agree that the district court erred in entering judgments against Jane and Marcus Frost in excess of $2500. Their liability arises pursuant to Florida statute section 741.24....
...Jane Frost also appeals from the denial of her renewed motion for a directed verdict made at the close of trial. We find these contentions frivolous and without merit because of the stipulation entered into by the parties at trial concerning the requirements of Fla.Stat. Sec. 741.24. We therefore affirm the judgment against Marcus and Jane Frost except as to amount 4 Specifically, section 741.24 provides: (1) Any municipal corporation, county, school district, or department of Florida; any person, partnership, corporation, or association; or any religious organization, whether incorporated or unincorporated, shall be entitled...
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1798
...the parent. Reading the statute in its entirety we believe its purpose is to make an adult, either the parent or guardian, responsible for any damages caused by a minor driver, whether those damages be caused by negligence or willful misconduct. Cf. section 741.24(1), Florida Statutes (1983), providing for parental statutory liability up to $2500.00 for certain damage caused by willful misconduct of minors....
...Again, it is the voluntary act of the sponsor in signing the license application that makes such sponsor liable for damages of all kinds just as though he or she were standing in the shoes of the minor. This voluntary assumption of liability is what distinguishes this situation from the parental liability provided in section 741.24(1), Florida Statutes (1983) and the common law rule upon the subject, both of which were mentioned in the majority opinion....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. June 16, 1982. Willard C. Wheeler, Jr., Jupiter, for appellant. Jane Kreusler-Walsh, West Palm Beach, and Frank J. McKeown of McKeown & Gamot, P.A., Palm Beach, for appellees. WALDEN, Judge. This appeal determines the constitutionality of § 741.24, Fla....
...179, 315 A.2d 110 (1975); Watson v. Gradzik, 34 Conn. Supp. 7, 373 A.2d 191 (1977); Nanthournout v. Burge, 69 Ill. App.3d 193, 25 Ill. Dec. 685, 387 N.E.2d 341 (1979). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. LETTS, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. NOTES [1] 741.24 Civil action against parents; willful destruction or theft of property by minor....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 1241948
...The mother has primary residential custody under the divorce decree, subject to visitation by the father every other weekend. In August 1997, while living with his mother, the then twelve-year-old Bradley vandalized property of Gulfstream Elementary School. The Dade County School Board sued both parents for damages under section 741.24, Florida Statutes (1997) which provides that the school district is entitled to recover damages "from the parents of any minor under the age of 18 years, living with the parents, who maliciously or willfully destroys or steals property..." belonging to the school district....
...o have actual custody of and control over the minor child. The lower court granted the father's motion for summary judgment, leaving the entire liability with the mother. The mother appealed. The issue, one of first impression in Florida, is whether section 741.24 applies to both parents equally regardless of marital status or custody/parental responsibility circumstances, or whether it applies only to the parent with whom the child is living at the time of the offense....
...[1] Under the facts presented in this case, the child was living with the mother at the time he vandalized school property, and it is the mother who had primary custody and control over the child. We agree with the *649 lower court that the statute contemplates finding the mother liable for the child's offenses. Section 741.24, Florida Statutes, was enacted in 1956 and since then the wording has remained virtually unchanged....
...truction of the phrase "living with" necessitates the conclusion that the non-custodial father's overnight visitation privilege with his son every other weekend does not rise to "living with" the father for purposes of imposing liability pursuant to section 741.24. [3] Appellant argues that the plain meaning of section 741.24 as applied to these facts must necessarily hold both parents liable, because the word "parents" is plural....
...tion rights with the child. [4] *650 The Final Judgment is affirmed. [5] SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs. GREEN, J. (dissenting) As I view this case, the issue for our determination on this appeal is whether divorced parents can jointly be held liable under section
741.24, Florida Statutes (1997), where: (1) the parents have been awarded shared parental responsibility of their minor child pursuant to section
61.13, Florida Statutes (1989); and (2) the minor child lives with each of the parents on alternate weekends. Because section
741.24 does not require that a minor child reside simultaneously with both parents in the same household in order for liability to attach, I believe that the answer to this question, under this particular factual scenario, [6] must be answered in the affirmative. Moreover, I believe that such a construction of section
741.24 would be wholly consistent with the concept of shared parental responsibility as found in section
61.046(11), Florida Statutes (1997). I therefore respectfully dissent to the majority's construction of section
741.24....
...The minor children regularly resided with their father on alternate weekends in accordance with the parties' agreement and final dissolution judgment. After the alleged vandalism incident in August 1997, the school board sued both Christine and Lyle Canida for damages pursuant to Florida's parental liability statutes section 741.24....
...shall be entitled to recover *651 damages in an appropriate action at law ... from the parents of any minor under the age of 18 years, living with the parents, who maliciously or willfully destroys or steals property ... belonging to such ... school district." § 741.24(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added). Lyle Canida thereafter moved for final summary judgment arguing that under the clear language of section 741.24(1), a parent is only liable for the acts of a minor who lives with that parent. Further, since it was undisputed that on the date of the incident in question, Bradley maintained his primary residence with his mother, Lyle asserted that he could have no liability for Bradley's alleged tortious acts as a matter of law under section 741.24(1)....
...arental responsibility" in a dissolution decree under chapter 61 cannot impose a burden on an absent parent of strict vicarious liability caused by his minor children. With all due respect to both the trial court and majority, such a construction of section 741.24(1) is unwarranted and virtually emasculates the concept of shared parental responsibility under chapter 61. First of all, in order for liability to be imposed against a parent(s) under section 741.24(1), its plain and unambiguous language simply requires that the miscreant minor "live" with the parents....
...It is undisputed that Bradley regularly lives with his father on alternate weekends. As such, under section
741.23(1) both parents are equally responsible for Bradley's alleged tortious actions under section
741.23(1). I believe that this construction of section
741.24(1) is not only consistent with the intent of this statute, but is also consistent with the legislative intent behind the concept of shared parental responsibility under chapter 61....
...Wherever possible, two statutes with related purposes such as we have here should be construed in pari materia. See State v. Cohen,
696 So.2d 435, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As the majority states, the fourth district's Stang decision has found the intent of section
741.24 to be an "aid in reducing juvenile delinquency by imposing liability upon parents who control minors ..." See Maj....
...liable for the minor's allegedly tortious acts under Florida's parental liability tort statute. To date, according to my research, no state with a similar parental tort liability statute has ever so reached such a result. [8] In its construction of section
741.24 in relation to section
61.046(11), the majority has effectively permitted these statutes to operate as a sword and shield for the secondary residential parentsin this case the father....
...of the major decision making processes involving the rearing of this minor child under chapter 61. Yet, when the child allegedly goes astray and causes damages to others, the father is now allowed to absolve himself from any and all liability under section 741.24 simply because he is the secondary residential parent....
...ion made by both parents having shared parental responsibility (e.g. a decision not to impose or enforce a curfew)? Under the majority decision, the primary residential parent would nevertheless bear sole responsibility for this joint decision under section
741.24. To avoid such an inequitable and outrageous result, I believe that sections
741.24 and
61.046(11) can and must be construed in para materia in order to give effect to the legislative intent of both statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3517, 1990 WL 66206
...were not on notice that their child was committing delinquent acts, the parents argue they had no reason to take extraordinary steps. In evaluating the legislature’s intent concerning the above-quoted statute, we believe it is helpful to consider section 741.24, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988)....
...before the theft and destruction of this car. Ch. 88-381, § 36, Laws of Fla. Since this child was living at home with the parents and was under the age of eighteen at the time of this theft, the parents could be strictly liable for this theft under section 741.24....
..., but nothing in this record suggests this unlikely possibility. Although the parents argue that this statute is inapplicable because the child is now nineteen and thus any civil action would now be brought after the child’s majority, we interpret section 741.24 to place liability upon parents if the conditions of the statute existed at the time of their child’s act....
...Instead, the state maintains that the parents failed to prove sufficient “diligence.” We agree that the parents had the burden to establish their diligence by the greater weight of the evidence. At least in cases which also implicate the strict liability of section 741.24, we agree with the trial court that the parents have the burden to prove a degree of effort which is over and above the efforts involved in average parenting....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1632, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14880
...ards them damages for the loss of certain personal property which was stolen from their home by four minor defendants/ cross-appellees. Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint against the four minors and their parents claiming damages based on: (1) section
741.24, Florida Statutes (1983); 1 (2) the alleged negligence of the parents in failing to control their minor children; and (3) section
812.035(7), Florida Statutes (1988), which provides treble damages for theft. 2 In its final judgment the trial court held that plaintiffs were entitled to recover $2500 in damages from the parents of each of the minors pursuant to section
741.24, for a total sum of $10,000, and damages in the sum of $13,000 against all four minors pursuant to section
812.035(7), the latter sum representing the total minimum value of the stolen property....
...ppeal but allowed the case to proceed on the cross-appeal. By cross-appeal plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred (1) in failing to award them treble damages pursuant to section
812.035(7), and (2) in ordering that any recovery obtained under section
741.24 be offset against the $13,000 judgment under section
812.035(7)....
...isterial act which has nothing whatever to do with the fact-finding function” after the crime has been proved. Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co.,
450 So.2d 1157, 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We agree with the trial court that any recovery under section
741.24 should be offset against any judgment under section
812.035(7)....
....037 states that section
812.035(11) “shall not be construed strictly or liberally, but shall be construed in light of [its] purposes to achieve [its] remedial goals.” We hold accordingly that section
812.035(11) permits suit under both sections
741.24 and
812.035(7) since the two forms of civil remedy are not inconsistent, but that there cannot be a double recovery for actual damages....
...e remedy prevents the use of ‘other remedies’ ”); Klondike, Inc. v. Blair,
211 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (same). Since plaintiffs recovered $13,000 under section
812.035(7), the trial court correctly ordered that any recovery made under section
741.24 be offset against the judgment of $13,000. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions. . Section
741.24, Florida Statutes (1983) provides:
741.24 Civil action against parents; willful destruction or theft of property by minor.— (1) [A]ny person ......
