FRANCIS R. HUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
RYDER TRUCK RENTALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A lessor of a truck to an employer is immune from third-party tort liability for injuries to the employer's employee caused by the leased truck.
An employee was injured when a leased truck's floor collapsed. The employee received workers' compensation and sued the truck lessor as a third-party …
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.
The appellant, an injured employee of the Miami Herald Publishing Company, sued the appellee as a third party tort-feasor responsible for his injury. Appellant was paid Workmen’s Compensation. The appellee leased a truck to appellant’s employer. Appellant was injured by falling through the bottom of the truck floor when it collapsed under his weight.
The question presented is whether appel-lee, as the lessor of the instrument which caused the injury, was entitled to immunity from suit under the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Statute, or should he be considered a third party liable to the appellant for negligently supplying the lessee (employer) with a defective instrument. The trial judge held that the appellee was immune from suit and entered summary judgment, for the appellee. We affirm.
There is no genuine issue of material fact, and the point presented is whether appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. We think that the construction of § 440.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. set forth in Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla. 1966, 182 So.2d 422, requires affirmance of the judgment entered. In that case it was held that motor vehicles leased for a term basis to an employer became, insofar as his employees were concerned, the equivalent of vehicles owned by the employer. Appellant attempts to distinguish the holding in the cited case upon the ground that it concerned actions by a fellow employee. We do not think that the fact that no fellow employee was involved in the present action makes the holding inapplicable, inasmuch as the basis of the holding is the liability for an injury caused by the motor vehicle concerned.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 216 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1968)…final judgment upon the immunity claim raised by its affirmative defense. Said motion was granted, and plaintiff-petitioner appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, which affirmed in Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 241. The District Court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla.1966, 182 So. 2d 422, “requires affirmance”. Hunt petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari directed to the District Court’s decision on…
-
Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 221 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on July 18, 1967 (201 So. 2d 241) affirming the summary judgment of [*465] the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s decision by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed December…
Authorities Cited
- Freddy R. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1966)