UNION AIR CONDITIONING, INC., AND THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
TONI TROXTELL AND JOHN TROXTELL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Union Air Conditioning appeals from summary judgment finding it liable for injuries caused by an automobile accident involving its company truck. The court affirms, applying Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine, which imposes liability on vehicle owners for negligent use by authorized drivers regardless of whether the actual driver acted without permission.
The court held that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applies and Union Air Conditioning is liable. The doctrine imposes liability on vehicle owners for negligent use of their vehicles by anyone operating them with the owner's authority, even if a permittee allows an unauthorized third party to drive the vehicle without the owner's knowledge or consent.
[1] The dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle for its negligent use by another when the owner authorizes its use on public highways.
[2] The dangerous instrumentality doctrine applies even when the permittee violates the owner's explicit instructions.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The principles of the common law do not permit the owner of an instrumentality that is ... peculiarly dangerous in its operation, to authorize another to use such instrumentality on the public highways without imposing upon such owner liability for negligent use.”
This quote establishes the core principle of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and the basis for holding the owner liable for injuries caused by the vehicle.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's employee was driving a company truck when an accident occurred, injuring appellee Toni Troxtell. The driver had received permission from a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant Union Air Conditioning, Inc. appeals from an order granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. We have jurisdiction, Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and affirm.
The instant lawsuit arises out of an automobile accident in which appellee Toni Troxtell was seriously injured. Appellant’s employee was driving a company truck at the time of the accident. This person had been given permission to drive the truck that day by a second employee who had permission to drive the truck to and from work and to keep the truck at his residence during non-working hours.
We find that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine controls our decision. This doctrine holds that
[t]he principles of the common law do not permit the owner of an instrumentality that is ... peculiarly dangerous in its operation, to authorize another to use such instrumentality on the public highways without imposing upon such owner liability for negligent use. The liability grows out of the obligation of the owner to have the vehicle ... properly operated when it is by his authority on the public highway.
Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832, 836 (Fla.1959) (citations omitted); Roth v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 269 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1972); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. S.J.G. Corp., 409 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1982); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Day Car, Inc., 395 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied sub nom American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Contreras, 402 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1981); Langston v. Personal Service Insurance Co., 377 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
This doctrine applies even if the lessee/permittee violates explicit instructions by the owner, P & H Vehicle Rental & Leasing Corp. v. Garner, 416 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (lessee intoxicated, violation of rental agreement); Alford v. Parker’s Mechanical Constructors, Inc., 241 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (employee violated employer’s express instructions not to use company vehicle for personal use), or if the lessee/permittee allows a third party to drive the owner’s vehicle without the owner’s permission, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Day Car, Inc., supra; Ray v. Earl, 277 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 280 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1973); Ivey v. National Fisheries, Inc., 215 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), as in the case at bar. The only two exceptions to the doctrine are when the use of the owner’s vehicle amounts to a conversion or theft, Commercial Carrier Corp. v. S.J.G. Corp., supra, or when the vehicle is left with another for repairs or servicing and the owner cannot exercise control over the operation of the vehicle while it is there. Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So. 2d 792 (Fla.1978).
Neither exception applies in the instant case. While we appreciate that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine may require what appears to be a harsh result, public policy favors holding the owner liable for damages caused by his vehicle. This is because the owner has the capacity to protect the safety of the public by not relinquishing control of the vehicle to another. Rabideau v. State, 409 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1982) (Boyd, J. dissenting).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dockery v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co., 796 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…d 1051, 1053 (Fla.1993). Public policy favors holding the owner liable, since the owner has the capacity to protect the safety of the public by not relinquishing control of his vehicle to another person. See Union Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Troxtell, 445 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Because the basis for holding the owner liable for damages is the owner’s knowledge and consent in “entrusting the automobile to another,” knowledge and consent of the owner are essential elements in establishing the owner’s liab…
-
Shedrick Almon v. Enter. Leasing Co., 537 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…e vehicle to be used by another the owner may be held liable for injuries to third persons resulting from such use and operation of the vehicle. See e.g., Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So. 2d 268 (1947); Union Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Troxtell, 445 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984). Liability may result even though the bailee under a rental agreement allows the vehicle to be used by another individual in violation of the express terms of the agreement. See Susco Car Ren…
-
Jackson v. The HERTZ Corp., 590 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…fter worker stopped at bar and became intoxicated). See generally Thomas v. Atlantic Assocs., Inc., 226 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1969); Tribbitt v. Crown [*938] Contractors, Inc., 513 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Union Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Troxtell, 445 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1984). But see Stupak v. Winter Park Leasing, Inc., 585 So. 2d 283 (Fla.1991).2 In very recent years, our supreme court, in the course of re-endorsing the validity of the doctrine, has set…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Miller v. Miller, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Roth v. OLD Republic Ins. Co. & N. River Ins. Co., 269 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1972)
- Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1978)
- Royal G. RAY & Morrison Assurance Co. v. Earl, 277 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Brigette Rabideau and Monika F. Jennings v. State of Fla. & Oscar Sambrine, 409 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1982)
- Mueller v. Mueller, 280 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1973)
- P & H Vehicle Rental & Leasing Corp. v. Garner, 416 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Braxton v. State, 215 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Elmore Ivey v. Nat'l Fisheries, Inc., 215 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)