MANHEIM AUCTIONS GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND FLORIDA AUTO AUCTION OF ORLANDO, INC. D/B/A DAYTONA AUTO DEALERS EXCHANGE, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
OSBALDO MEJIA, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Manheim Auctions and Florida Auto Auctions (collectively Manheim) contracted with the GSA to relocate a government vehicle. When the vehicle, driven by Daniel Webb through a chain of contractors, rear-ended Edwin Mejia's car and killed his wife, Mejia sued for negligence and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed that Manheim was a bailee liable for Webb's negligence and reversed the trial court's denial of Manheim's indemnification cross-claim against David's Used Cars.
Manheim was a bailee of the GSA vehicle and thus vicariously liable for Webb's negligence as a matter of law. Both Manheim and David's Used Cars were bailees acting in concert as a conduit of the vehicle, making each vicariously liable for Webb's negligence. Manheim was entitled to a directed verdict on its cross-claim for indemnification against David's Used Cars.
[1] A party in constructive possession of a vehicle can be considered a bailee and held vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver to whom possession is transferred.
[2] When multiple parties act in concert to transfer possession of a vehicle from an owner to a negligent driver, each party can be held vicariously liable for the driver's n…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Manheim was, at the very least, in constructive possession of the vehicle for bailment purposes. We thus affirm the trial court's pre-trial summary ruling that Manheim was a bailee and thus liable as a matter of law for Webb's negligence.”
Establishes that Manheim's constructive possession of the vehicle created bailee status and vicarious liability for the driver's negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManheim contracted with the GSA to relocate a government vehicle from Cape Canaveral to the Keys. Manheim hired David's Used Cars as an independent co…
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 Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Manheim Auctions Government Services, Inc. and Florida Auto Auctions of Orlando, Inc., [collectively, Manheim] had a contract with the United States government [GSA] to auction government vehicles. On the occasion we are dealing with here, GSA requested Manheim to relocate a non-auction government vehicle from one government location at Cape Canaveral to another government location in the Keys. Manheim arranged for David’s Used Cars, an independent contractor, to relocate the government-owned container truck. David’s Used Cars then arranged for Daniel Wayne Webb to do the actual driving.
Edwin Mejia was driving on 1-95 with his wife and his daughter, Nelly, when he slowed to approach a slow-moving or stopped car1 in his lane. Webb was driving the GSA truck behind Mejia and failed to observe Mejia slowing down. The truck rear-ended Mejia’s vehicle and crushed it, killing Mejia’s wife and leaving Mejia significantly brain damaged. Edwin Mejia and his daughter, through their legal guardian Osbaldo Mejia, sued Webb for negligence, and sued Manheim Auctions and David’s Used Cars for vicarious liability for Webb’s negligence.
Prior to trial, the court granted Mejia’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Manheim was the bailee of the GSA vehicle, and thus was vicariously liable for Webb’s negligence.2 At trial, the court granted Mejia’s motion for directed verdict finding Webb, the driver, negligent as a matter of law.3 The trial court denied Manheim’s cross-claim which had sought indemnification against David’s Used Cars.
The jury found against Manheim and awarded Mejia $1 million in non-economic damages over his projected 40-year life expectancy.4 Upon motion, the trial court awarded a non-economic additur of $1.8 million for past pain and suffering and $7.5 million for future pain and suffering. To Nelly Mejia the court added $100,000 for past pain and suffering, and $500,000 for future pain and suffering. Manheim then rejected the additur and the trial court granted a new trial limited to determining non-economic damages. This appeal ensued.
As the record reflects, Manheim arranged for David’s Used Cars to pick up the vehicle, and David’s Used Cars arranged for Webb to drive it. Manheim was, at the very least, in constructive possession of the vehicle for bailment purposes. We thus affirm the trial court’s pre-trial summary .ruling that Manheim was a bailee and thus liable as a matter of law for Webb’s negligence.5 We conclude from the facts that are not disputed that David’s Used Cars also was a bailee. Acting pursuant to Manheim’s express instructions and with Manheim’s identification, David’s Used Cars took actual possession of the truck from the GSA and transferred possession to the driver Webb to carry out the GSA/Manheim agreement. Manheim and David’s Used Cars, acting in concert, together became a conduit of the vehicle from GSA to Webb. As such each is vicariously liable for Webb’s negligence.6 We thus reverse the trial court’s order denying Manheim’s motion for a directed verdict on its cross-claim for indemnification against David’s Used Cars.
We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s thoroughly considered order granting an additur for the plaintiffs’ non-economic damages pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2003). We thus affirm the additur order. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to set a new trial for the determination of non-economic damages suffered by the Plaintiffs because Manheim rejected the additur, see ITT Hartford, Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla.2002); Brant v. Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and we remand accordingly.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
. Driven by Carloe Levy Johnson, who was found by the jury to be negligent and had attributed to her 10% of Edwin Mejia’s injuries.
. The plaintiffs settled with David's Used Cars prior to trial.
. The jury attributed 90% of the cause of Edwin Mejia's damages to Webb.
. The jury awarded Edwin Mejia $21 million in future medical expenses (present value).
. We affirm the trial court's directed verdict finding Webb negligent as a matter of law.
. See Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ketchem, 445 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) as to the conduit from owner to negligent driver.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deehl (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…order granting a new trial on damages after a party has rejected an additur is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572, 575 (Fla. 2002); see also Manheim 10 Auctions Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. Mejia, 930 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an…
Authorities Cited
- Itt Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se. v. Stiles Jerry Owens and Jean A. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002)
- Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ingeborg M. Ketchem and Lisa Ketchem, 445 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. & Constitution State Serv. Co. v. Perdue, 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Brant v. Dollar Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 869 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)