Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

506 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Commercial Coatings OF Nw. Fla., Inc. v. Pensacola Concrete Constr. Co., Inc.
  616 So. 2d 960· Fla.· 1993-04-08 ·cited 8×
  Pensacola Concrete Construction Company, which loaned a crane to Commercial Coatings, was held vicariously liable for injuries to a Commercial Coatings employee under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The Florida Supreme Court approved indemnity recovery by Pensacola Concre
• Commerce Ins. Co. & William A. Henderson v. Atlas Rent A CAR, Inc.
  585 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a rental car company can shift the burden of primary insurance coverage to the renter's insurer by providing conspicuous notice in bold type on the rental agreement, as permitted by Florida Statute § 627.7263.
• Canull v. Hodges
  584 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-08-15 ·cited 8×
  Canull sued the lessors of a road grader involved in an accident. The court held that a road grader is not a dangerous instrumentality under Florida law and that the lessor exemption in the financial responsibility statute applies only to automobiles, thus affirming the trial cou
• Williams v. Bumpass
  568 So. 2d 979· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-10-11 ·cited 8×
  Tracy Williams appeals a jury verdict holding her liable for negligent entrustment of a firearm after she retrieved and handed a gun to Mark Shim during a fight with Sidney Bumpass, resulting in Bumpass being shot. The court affirms, holding that liability for negligent entrustme
• Enter. Leasing Co. v. Shedrick Almon
  559 So. 2d 214· Fla.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The supreme court quashed the district court's decision, holding that an owner is not liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to the person to whom a bailee entrusted the vehicle for injuries sustained due to that third party's negligence.
• Foster v. Arthur
  519 So. 2d 1092· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-02-08 ·cited 8×
  Foster, who owned a loaded firearm kept in her bedroom in a home shared with Merchant (a convicted murderer and life parolee), was found liable for negligent entrustment after Merchant used the gun to permanently paralyze Arthur. The court affirmed judgment against Foster, holdin
• Pullman, Inc. v. Johnson
  543 So. 2d 231· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-11-04 ·cited 8×
  Pullman, Inc. and its insurer INA appealed a judgment imposing liability on them in a wrongful death case. The court held that a trailer portion of a tractor-trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality justifying vicarious liability for the tractor driver's negligence, but affirme
• Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  801 F.2d 1279· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 8×
  The court certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether an implied warranty cause of action exists against an airplane manufacturer for a passenger's injuries in the absence of privity, and if so, which statute of limitations applies.
• Union AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. Troxtell
  445 So. 2d 1057· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-02-07 ·cited 8×
  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
• Bickley v. Castillo
  346 So. 2d 625· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-05-31 ·cited 8×
  This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a vehicle owner can be held liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for injuries caused by a mechanic's negligent road testing of the vehicle while it was in the repair shop's custody. The court held that the doctrine does n
• Allbright v. Hanft
  333 So. 2d 112· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-06-11 ·cited 8×
  This case concerns whether a prior Georgia court's ruling on jurisdiction, which dismissed a defendant due to lack of jurisdiction under the Nonresident Motorists' Act, has res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent Florida lawsuit. The Florida court held that the
• United States v. Moore
  487 F.2d 414· 10th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the jeopardy element and that the photographic identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive, thus affirming the conviction.
• Christy v. Fla. Power Corp.
  232 So. 2d 744· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-01-15 ·cited 8×
• Orefice v. Albert
  226 So. 2d 15· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-07-22 ·cited 8×
  A co-owner of an airplane not actively negligent is not liable for harm caused by the other co-owner's negligent operation, especially when the victim is the child of the negligent pilot.
• ECK v. E. I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co.
  393 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant manufacturer's duty to warn of the dangers of dynamite, including minimum safe distances, was a question of fact for the jury, and summary judgment was improperly granted.
• Allen Williams b/n/f Louise J. Smyre v. United States
  379 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a 13-year-old boy's knowledge of ordinary firecrackers was insufficient to establish he knew or should have known of the extraordinary dangers of a military M-80 explosive, thus his negligence did not bar or diminish recovery.
• Maude D. Bullock v. Armstrong
  180 So. 2d 479· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-12-03 ·cited 8×
  A parent can be liable for a child's tort if the parent's own negligence in entrusting an instrumentality to the child, without adequate supervision, proximately causes injury.
• Worthington Corp. v. Lease Mgmt., Inc.
  352 F.2d 24· 6th Cir.· 1965-10-09 ·cited 8×
• Ball v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co.
  121 So. 2d 470· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-06-02 ·cited 8×
  Ball appealed from a directed verdict in a garnishment proceeding against an insurance company. Ball sought to garnish Inland Mutual Insurance Company based on an alleged debt owed to driver McNaughton under an auto insurance policy, but the trial court directed a verdict for the
• Maxine W. Clark under the Last Will and Testament of E. P. Clark v. Ocala GAS Co., Inc.
  123 So. 2d 391· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-05-05 ·cited 8×
  A widow sued a gas company for damages resulting from her husband's death in a sewer lift station explosion, alleging negligence. The jury found the gas company not guilty and instead concluded that a third party (the City of Ocala) was solely responsible for the death. The appel
• Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Peters
  206 F.2d 366· 4th Cir.· 1953-08-04 ·cited 8×
  A defendant is not liable for injuries caused by escaping gas if it could not reasonably have foreseen that someone would enter a valve box and ignite a spark, even if the defendant was negligent in maintaining the valves.
• Salsbury v. Kapka
  41 So. 3d 1103· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-08-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without an adequate factual record to determine if an ATV is a dangerous instrumentality.
• Saullo v. Douglas
  957 So. 2d 80· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-05-11 ·cited 7×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment granted in favor of Dart Transit Company in a wrongful death action, holding that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding Dart's vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for a tractor
• Sierra v. A Betterway Rent-A-Car, Inc.
  863 So. 2d 358· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-11-19 ·cited 7×
  Gabriel Sierra was struck by a van in Miami Beach driven by a customer who had rented the vehicle from Budget Rent-A-Car in Atlanta, Georgia. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Budget and Bette
• Allstate Indem. Co. v. Lesley Armstrong Wise
  818 So. 2d 524· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-05-30 ·cited 7×
  Allstate sought a declaration that injury claims arising from accidents during a high-speed chase were excluded from coverage under an automobile liability policy's intentional acts exclusion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the claimants, holding that the exclu
• Virgilio Duarte v. Wetzel
  682 So. 2d 1200· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-11-13 ·cited 7×
  In this negligence case involving the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the vehicle owner, holding that no implied consent existed where the owner explicitly prohibited the unlicensed driver from using the vehic
• HERTZ Corp. & William H. Brown v. Amerisure Ins. Co.
  627 So. 2d 22· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-10-20 ·cited 7×
  Hertz Corporation and William H. Brown appealed a summary judgment denying coverage under Brown's auto liability policy with Amerisure. The court reversed, holding that Brown's liability as a bailee under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine was covered under his policy's broad
• Caetano v. Bridges
  502 So. 2d 51· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-02-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the driver's actions were intentional or negligent.
• Faron Russell Ford v. Coleman
  462 So. 2d 834· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-12-20 ·cited 7×
  Ford, injured as a passenger in a vehicle owned by Russo Communications and driven by Coleman, settled with the owner and insurer and executed a release discharging the owner and its agents. The court held that Coleman, as a permissive user of the vehicle, was an agent of the own
• Cutcher v. C.A. Walker and Charles H. Powers
  455 So. 2d 1335· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-09-19 ·cited 7×
  Lorraine Cutcher appeals summary judgment dismissing her negligence action against her deceased husband's employers following a truck collision and fire that killed her husband and severely burned her. The court affirms summary judgment on respondeat superior claims but reverses
• Skroh v. Newby
  237 So. 2d 548· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-05-26 ·cited 7×
  In this consolidated wrongful death negligence action, the court reversed judgments for two defendants (a deputy sheriff and the sheriff) in a case where a third deputy's patrol car struck and killed a teenager on a motorcycle. The court held that the jury should have been allowe
• Powell v. Henry
  224 So. 2d 730· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-07-02 ·cited 7×
  A trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality under Florida law, and a presumption of ownership arising from a license tag is rebuttable by uncontradicted evidence.
• Depriest v. Greeson
  213 So. 3d 1022· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-02-21 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine holds a decedent's estate vicariously liable for damages caused by the decedent's adult daughter driving the decedent's car after his death but before a personal representative was formally appointed. The co
• Roman v. Bogle
  113 So. 3d 1011· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-05-03 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether the dangerous instrumentality doctrine—which imposes vicarious liability on vehicle owners for negligent drivers operating the vehicle with consent—automatically makes the driver an agent of the owner for purposes of interpreting release agreements. Th
• Lyons v. Tanois Chamoun
  96 So. 3d 456· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-08-29 ·cited 6×
  In consolidated appeals, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed attorney's fees and expert witness fees awards to the plaintiff in an auto accident case, finding that the plaintiff's proposal for settlement failed to satisfy Rule 1.442 because it did not attach or adequatel
• Rippy v. Shepard
  15 So. 3d 921· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-08-06 ·cited 6×
  A farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law. Statutory definitions of 'motor vehicle' and the tractor's size do not make it so.
• Festival FUN Parks, LLC v. Gooch
  904 So. 2d 542· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-06-01 ·cited 6×
  Festival Fun Parks appeals a judgment holding it vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for injuries sustained when a plaintiff's go-kart was bumped by another go-kart on an enclosed amusement track. The court reversed, holding that the dangerous instrume
• Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car
  762 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-07-28 ·cited 6×
  A wrongful death cause of action by surviving beneficiaries cannot exist where the decedent, as a co-bailee of a leased vehicle, had no right of action against the vehicle's owner under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, because the doctrine does not apply to a bailee's inju
• Wallace v. Nat'l Fisheries, Inc.
  768 So. 2d 17· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-07-26 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment for the defendants is reversed because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the driver's negligence and the applicability of the sudden emergency doctrine.
• Zenaida Rodriguez-Cespedes and Manuel R. Cespedes v. Creative Leasing, Inc.
  728 So. 2d 811· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-03-10 ·cited 6×
  A lessor cannot claim statutory exemption from liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine if the lease agreement does not strictly require the lessee to obtain the statutorily mandated insurance coverage.
• Deemer v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc.
  704 So. 2d 133· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-10-21 ·cited 6×
  Appellants injured in a Florida automobile accident challenged a summary judgment applying Texas law to vicarious liability claims against Budget Rent-A-Car. The court affirmed, holding that under the significant relationships test, Texas law applies because the rental transactio
• Dubus v. McARTHUR
  682 So. 2d 1246· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The Dubuses sued Ernest McArthur for negligent entrustment arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a rented vehicle. While the court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the negligent entrustment claim, it reversed and remanded because the Dubuses should have been giv
• Knight v. Roberts RV Resort
  671 So. 2d 298· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The Knights sued Roberts RV Resort after Daniel Knight was injured when thrown from a golf cart driven by the resort's employee, Robert Haseltine. The trial court granted summary judgment to the resort on the issues of golf cart ownership and whether Haseltine was acting within t
• Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Davis
  664 So. 2d 1025· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's order compelling discovery was a departure from the essential requirements of law because the requested information was irrelevant to the determination of GMAC's ownership status under the statute.
• Hatcher v. Dixon
  660 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The Hatchers appeal summary judgment in favor of their former attorney Dixon in a fraud case. The Hatchers alleged Dixon fraudulently induced them to settle with the driver by falsely representing they could still pursue the car owner Enterprise, then later argued the settlement
• Gedert v. Se. Bank Leasing Co.
  637 So. 2d 253· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-01-12 ·cited 6×
  A lessor's contingent liability policy does not satisfy the statutory requirement of Florida Statute 324.021(9)(b) if the lessee's required insurance policy has lapsed at the time of the accident.
• N. Tr. Bank OF Fla., N.A. v. Constr. Equip. Int'l, Inc.
  587 So. 2d 502· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-09-17 ·cited 6×
  This case involves a wrongful death action following a crane accident on a construction site. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of the crane lessor (CEI), finding no vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine or active
• Morales v. Ryder Truck Rental & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  559 So. 2d 317· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-04-03 ·cited 6×
  Miguel Morales sued Ryder Truck Rental for injuries caused by a coworker driving a leased truck, but the court held that Ryder, as lessor of a dangerous instrumentality to the employer, shares the employer's workers' compensation immunity and therefore cannot be sued by the emplo
• Meister v. Fisher
  435 So. 2d 981· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The Meisters appealed a judgment dismissing their negligence claim against a golf course owner after a golf cart accident on the course. The court held that golf carts do not fall within Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine because, while they meet the technical definitio
• Jackson v. Marine Terminals, Inc.
  422 So. 2d 882· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The owner of a tractor, who lent it to a shipping company, is not immune from liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for injuries sustained by an employee of the shipping company, even if the employee received compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worke