HomeMy WebLinkAbout1108 OWEN, C. J. , concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the view that the court was correct in determining
as a matter of taw that Neal Carr was a guest passenger under the facts
of this case. I likewise concur in the holding that the trial court erred
;
in instructing the jury that the defense of assumption of the risk was
available to tlie defendant-Mayer. Thus, as to this defendant, I agree '
i
tlut tlie judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new
trial.
However, I am utterly dumbfounded by the view that the repeal
of the guest statute, Section 320.59, F.S. , effective February, I972, would
affect one iota the status of Neal Carr as a"guest passenger" at the time
of the accident on September 17, 1969. The repeal of the guest passenger
statute has absolutely no bearing on this case, at any stage of the proceed-
ings, whether it be trial originally, or upon appellate consideration, or '
upon subsequent trial. ~
I c~~nnot a~;ree that the trial court's comment discussed in the
nr.~ jurity upinicxi, wl?cn cun~iacrcJ in proEx:r ccx~tcxt, coulci tkive harmcd
appcllant's case against the defenciant-Crosby. As to that defendant and
its drivcr-Thomas, I would affirm the judgment.
~
~
;
;
s
s
~
~ ,
s
!
!
5 •
;
•
. i
3
s
S
.
z
i
~ _
~ ~
~
~o~ ~20 ~ ~.i4~
_
- _ , _
_