
    G & C FORD COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. David TONER, Respondent.
    No. 41413.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 17, 1972.
    Rehearing Denied June 30, 1972.
    William M. Howell, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
    Harry B. Mahon, of Mahon & Mahon, Jacksonville, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court and the writ of certiorari issued. After argument and upon further examination of the record and briefs in this case, we conclude that there is no conflict justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed and the writ is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

CARLTON, J., not participating.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting).

Under the principles announced in Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965), a bailor-owner of a car (in this instance G & C Ford Co.) is not liable for injuries his bailee inflicts upon himself by reason of his negligent operation of the bailed car. The dangerous instrumentality and vicarious liability doctrines do not cover such a situation. Neither is the bailor-owner liable for injuries negligently inflicted upon a successor bailee (Toner in this case) by the driver (McGowan) selected by the successor bailee (Toner) to operate the car.

Raydel holds: . . . where a bailee instead of driving the automobile himself permits a third party to drive it for him and is injured by the driver’s negligence while a passenger in the car,” the bailor-owner of the car is not liable. (Text 572.)  