Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

441 So. 2d 1151

Wummer v. Lowary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 16, 1983

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-11-16

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Beneficial ownership carries with it liability for damages which arise from an automobile’s negligent operation. Wum-mer’s employee had sole possession of the auto. Wummer saw it for the first time after the accident occurred. She was not the beneficial owner of the Ca-maro. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer’s motion for summary judgment.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 98 So. 3d 136 - Bowen v. Taylor-Christensen

Relies on 113 So. 2d 771 - Cox Motor Company v. Faber · 117 So. 2d 11 - Hicks v. Land · 424 So. 2d 881 - Harrell ex rel. Harrell v. Sellars

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-11-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2014

5 state decisions

201983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appeal was taken from the trial court’s order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer’s summary judgment motion. We reverse.

¶2Wummer refinanced one of her employee’s repossessed Camaro. She deducted the monthly payments from the employee’s paycheck and the employee maintained control over the car. Lowary was injured while a passenger in the Camaro. Suit was filed against Wummer as the owner of the vehicle.

¶3Beneficial ownership carries with it liability for damages which arise from an automobile’s negligent operation. Harrell v. Sellars, 424 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA *11521983); Hicks v. Land, 117 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); and, Cox Motor Co. v. Faber, 113 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Wum-mer’s employee had sole possession of the auto. Wummer saw it for the first time after the accident occurred. She was not the beneficial owner of the Camaro. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Lowary’s and denying Wummer⅛ motion for summary judgment.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
/441/so2d/1151 · .json · Public domain