From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 14, 1973
282 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-49.

July 18, 1973. Rehearing Denied September 14, 1973.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Polk County, William K. Love, J.

Dan H. Honeywell, of Billings, Frederick, Wooten Honeywell, Orlando, for appellant.

David J. Williams, of Langston Massey, Lakeland, for appellees.


Affirmed. See Sims v. Apperson Chemicals, Inc., Fla.App. 1st 1966, 185 So.2d 179; Restatement (Second), Torts § 314 (1965); 2 Harper and James, Torts §§ 18.1, 18.2, 18.6, 18.7 (1956). Cf. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, Fla.App.1st 1972, 269 So.2d 708; Lydick v. Chance, Fla.App.2d 1968, 214 So.2d 885; Tuloma Gas Products Company v. Lehmberg, Tex.Civ.App. 1968, 430 S.W.2d 281.

MANN, C.J., and LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.


ON PETITION FOR REHEARING


The petition for rehearing, which looks like a precursor of what we would judge an ill-founded petition to the Supreme Court for conflict certiorari, prompts us to add this simple explanation of the cases with which we are allegedly in conflict.

In Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., Fla. App.2d 1966, 182 So.2d 292, there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Mary Carter Paint Company's driver, who stopped first on the pavement, arguably causing to stop the vehicle into which the plaintiff's decedent crashed. A summary judgment for Mary Carter Paint Company was properly reversed.

In Lydick v. Chance, Fla.App.2d 1968, 214 So.2d 885, a jury verdict was upheld on evidence that a car was left in a dangerous situation when it should have been moved. There we distinguished Sims v. Apperson Chemicals, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1966, 185 So.2d 179, which governs this case. In Sims and the case before us there is no evidence of causation. Here, Johnson, driving Publix' truck, did not have anything to do with the accident. Smith, driving south on U.S. 98, hit a horse in the road which had been struck by a man named Massey, whose truck was stopped in the road when Johnson came along, northbound, and necessarily stopped behind Massey. The fact that Smith's vehicle, after hitting the horse, hit the Publix truck operated by Johnson is purely fortuitous. There is no showing of negligence on Johnson's part, and no evidence of his conduct as a cause of the injury. Smith's action properly proceeds against Dykas, who owned the horse, and Massey, who struck it, and Massey's employer. It was properly terminated against Johnson and his employer.

Rehearing denied.

LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 14, 1973
282 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

Smith v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:BILLY RAY SMITH, APPELLANT, v. CLARENCE EUGENE JOHNSON AND PUBLIX SUPER…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 14, 1973

Citations

282 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Johnson

January 15, 1974. Certiorari denied. 282 So.2d 178. CARLTON, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ.,…

Shephard v. Azzarelli Construction

We do so because it was conclusively established that the location of the defendant's vehicles was not itself…