Curtis v. Cuff

I dissent from the majority opinion’s holding that appellant, because she offered uncontested evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of consent, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As the trial judge perceptively observed, the very fact that appellant held the status of joint owner of the car with her husband implies her consent to her co-owner husband’s operation of the car. Add to that fact the unre-butted evidence that over a long period she routinely assented to his operation of the car, and the absence of any indication that she ever took steps to withdraw her consent or to…