VALUE RENT-A-CAR, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
COLLECTION CHEVROLET, INC., APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the circumstances of the car's disappearance, precluding summary judgment.
[1] A genuine issue of material fact exists when the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of a bailed item from a bailee's possession are disputed.
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate when the trier-of-fact must resolve disputed circumstances regarding the loss or theft of property entrusted to another's care.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff left a car with defendant for repairs, but the car was stolen and recovered damaged. Defendant admitted the car was left with them but denie…
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
In this negligence action, plaintiff below, Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. (Value) appeals the trial court’s granting of defendant Collection Chevrolet, Inc.’s (Collection) cross-motion for summary final judgment. We reverse.
Collection failed to return to Value a 1986 Chevrolet Corvette which Value had left with it for certain automotive repairs. Value’s agent went to Collection to pick up the car after the repairs were to have been completed, but the car and keys were missing. Metro-Dade police subsequently recovered the car, stripped and heavily damaged. In its answer to Value’s complaint, Collection admitted that the car had been left with it for repairs, but denied that it was negligent or careless in safeguarding the car or in preventing its theft.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. Value contended that, while the car and its keys were left in the exclusive possession of Collection for repairs, Collection could not return the car, and that the car could not have been lost or stolen without Collection’s negligence. Collection’s cross-motion contended that there had been no showing of negligence, and Collection presented the deposition of its corporate representative attesting to its security measures. The court then heard argument in support of the respective motions, after which it ruled in favor of Collection, entering an order denying Value's motion for summary judgment and entering an order granting Collection’s cross-motion for summary judgment. This appeal follows from the granting of Collection’s cross-motion.
A review of the record herein discloses the existence of a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the summary final judgment, to-wit: the circumstances under which the car and its keys disappeared from Collection’s lot. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); see also Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985). This issue should be presented to and resolved by the trier-of-fact. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Collection’s cross-motion for summary final judgment.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Collection Chevrolet, Inc., 570 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…urt reversed and remanded the summary judgment, ruling that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to “the circumstances under which the car and its keys disappeared from Collection’s lot.” Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Collection Chevrolet, Inc., 543 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). On remand, Value amended its complaint to raise a claim of negligent bailment. At trial, Value rested its negligent bailment case upon the stipulation of the parties that: (1) Value delivered the car to Collection; (2) Coll…
-
Supreme Int'l Corp. v. AIR SEA Shipping, Inc., 585 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ce department unit that investigates thefts only from warehouses in the area. Thus, the record contains evidence from which the trier of fact could draw reasonable inferences in favor of Supreme. Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Collection Chevrolet, Inc., 543 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. B & F Marine, Inc., 520 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); City of Clearwater v. Thomas, 446 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Clermont Marine Sales, Inc. v. Harmon, 347 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)