GARY FRONRATH VOLKSWAGEN, INC. AND BURT SCHLOSSBERG, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY M. MUNSEY AND GLORIA FORD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An automobile dealer who sold a vehicle to an unlicensed buyer owes no duty to a third party injured in an accident, as the negligent entrustment doctrine does not apply to vehicle sales once ownership transfers.
A seller of a motor vehicle owes no duty to a third party injured by the negligent operation of the vehicle once legal or beneficial ownership and the right to possession have been transferred.
[1] A motor vehicle seller owes no duty to third parties injured by the buyer's negligent operation once ownership and possession transfer, and the negligent entrustment doct…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile dealer and salesman sold a vehicle to a buyer without a driver's license, placed a temporary tag on the car, and delivered it to the buy…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty Of Care To Third Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue on appeal is whether an automobile dealer may be liable to an injured third party by virtue of the sale of a vehicle to an unlicensed buyer. The appellants, dealer and salesman,, knew that the vehicle buyer did not have a driver’s license. The appellee contends that by placing a temporary tag on the car after assisting in obtaining financing and insurance, and by delivering the automobile to the buyer, the appellants put an unlicensed driver on the road. The appellee was injured in an accident three days later.
The trial court erred in denying appellants’ motion for directed verdict. In Horne v. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc., — So. 2d-13 F.L.W. 520 (Fla. Sept. 1, 1988), the supreme court held that a seller of a motor vehicle owes no duty to a third party injured by the negligent operation of a vehicle once legal or beneficial ownership and the right to possession have been transferred. In that case, the supreme court rejected the application of the negligent entrustment doctrine to the sale of an automobile. We can discern no reason to apply a different rule here. The final judgment is reversed. We remand for entry of a judgment in favor of the defendants.
HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weiner v. Motorcycle World, Inc., 558 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ent operation of a vehicle, even where the dealer was aware of the buyer’s incompetence in the operation of the vehicle, after beneficial ownership and legal title has been transferred to the buyer. See also Gary Fronrath Volkswagen, Inc. v. Munsey, 532 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 539 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1989). Summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed.…