# Schwartz v. Metro Limo, Inc.

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · November 27, 1996 · 683 So. 2d 201

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7701768

## Case

- **Full name:** Eric SCHWARTZ and Tina Schwartz v. METRO LIMO, INC.
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** November 27, 1996
- **Citations:** 683 So. 2d 201; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12445; 1996 WL 681215
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schwartz
- **Judges:** Goderich, Schwartz, Shevin
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7701768

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where incorrectly named defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an answer with affirmative defenses and actively participated in discovery, it “led the plaintiff to believe that the correct defendant had been sued” and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to …

## Opinion text

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I agree entirely with the court’s treatment of the “relation back” issue and that the action against the present appellee, Metro Limo, Inc. was consequently not barred by the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, I would affirm the judgment in its favor below on the simple ground that it had no substantive liability for the accident in question.
The trial court found that Metro Limo, Inc.’s involvement in the confusing scenario was that it
permitted taxicabs which paid it a weekly fee to use the logo “Metro Taxi” and Metro phone number on the side of [the] taxicab.
While these facts might arguably give rise to a claim against Metro Taxi Cab Co. Inc., see Mercury Cab Owners’ Ass’n v. Jones, 79 So.2d 782 (Fla.1955); Economy Cabs, Inc. v. Kirkland, 127 Fla. 867 , 174 So. 222 (1937), that defendant had long since won an unap-pealed summary judgment in its favor. No liability may be imposed, however, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine or otherwise, upon a corporation simply for accepting funds for the use of another company’s name on a taxicab. 2 4A Fla.Jur.2d Automobiles & Other Vehicles § 667 (1994).
. There is no contention that the separate identities of the two corporations should be disregarded nor any legal basis to do so. See Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla.1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7701768. Public record. Not legal advice.