Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

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

• Locke v. Liquid AIR Corp.
  725 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under Alabama law, water hazards, even those with concealed dangers, are not considered dangerous instrumentalities or attractive nuisures, and landowners owe no duty to trespassing children beyond not intentionally harming them.
• U-Haul Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Glasgow & Davis Co.
  445 So. 2d 1082· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-02-22 ·cited 2×
  U-Haul Company appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The court held that a trailer constitutes a motor vehicle under Florida law for purposes of service of process, and affirmed the denial of the mot
• Boland v. Suncoast Rent-A-Scooter, Inc.
  439 So. 2d 916· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-09-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Fla. Stat. § 327.32 does not immunize a vessel's lessor from liability for injuries to a third party and that the trial testimony created a question for the jury.
• Johnson v. Bathey
  350 So. 2d 545· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-10-05 ·cited 2×
  A nine-year-old trespasser was severely injured by an operating irrigation pump on agricultural property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law requires proof that the child was specif
• Pemberton v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  423 F.2d 426· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict for the plaintiff against Pan American World Airways, Inc., but affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the United States.
• Heinicke v. Brooks McCARTY
  213 So. 2d 475· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-07-18 ·cited 2×
  This workers' compensation subrogation case involves an employee injured by a crane owned by the defendants while working on a construction project. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial judgment, holding that the jury properly determined the contractor was not a general
• Weaver v. Stone
  212 So. 2d 80· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-06-25 ·cited 2×
  Payment of a judgment into the court registry pursuant to F.S. § 55.62 constitutes full satisfaction of that judgment without requiring the plaintiff's consent, and satisfaction of a judgment against one of several jointly and severally liable tortfeasors discharges the liability
• Johnson v. Williams
  192 So. 2d 339· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The parents of a nine-year-old boy who died after running into a wire cable on defendants' property sued for wrongful death under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that a wire cable does not constitute the type of inherently dangerous conditi
• Alred v. Jones
  189 So. 2d 226· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-08-03 ·cited 2×
  In this wrongful death case, the appellate court affirmed a summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' negligence claims against an employer corporation when an employee used the employer's truck without permission for personal purposes, resulting in a fatal accident. The court held
• Freddy R. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.
  176 So. 2d 599· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The employer's immunity under the Workmen's Compensation Act extends to the employer's lessor, precluding liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
• Matthews v. Lawnlite Co.
  88 So. 2d 299· Fla.· 1956-05-25 ·cited 2×
  A manufacturer of aluminum lounge chairs is liable to a potential customer injured while examining the chair in a retail store when a concealed, moving mechanism under the armrest severs the customer's finger. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that manufac
• Glover v. Yonce
  188 F.2d 870· 4th Cir.· 1951-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in setting aside the jury's verdict, as the evidence presented questions of fact for the jury regarding the defendants' negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
• Arkansas-Missouri Power Corp. v. City of Rector
  164 F.2d 938· 8th Cir.· 1947-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the city was not estopped from denying the power company a franchise and that the company lacked authority to construct a high voltage transmission line through city streets without proper permits and authorization, especially given the line's dangerous nature
• Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Metzner
  150 F.2d 206· 6th Cir.· 1945-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the question of whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent was a jury issue, and that the defendant had a duty of care to warn onlookers of the dangers associated with a dynamite explosion.
• Thompson v. Bell
  129 F.2d 211· 6th Cir.· 1942-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a minor passenger could be held liable for the negligence of a hayrack driver under a joint enterprise theory, as an infant cannot create an agency relationship for imputed negligence.
• Kiffer v. Bozik
  413 So. 3d 807· Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-06-25 ·cited 1×
  Once a vehicle owner voluntarily entrusts a vehicle to another, the owner remains vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine even if the driver violates specific safety instructions, such as a prohibition against driving while intoxicated. A specific prohibit
• Kennedy v. AmGUARD Ins. Co.
  2013 WL 12092257· S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended granting the defendant's motion to amend its affirmative defenses and denying the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint and remand the case.
• Sager v. Madalina Blanco and Ricardo F. Blanco
  351 So. 3d 1129· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-10-12 ·cited 1×
  Arthur Sager sued Madalina Blanco under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine after her son Ricardo intentionally weaponized her vehicle to strike and drag Sager, causing serious injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for Blanco, reasoning that the criminal convictio
• Romero v. Fields Motorcars of Fla., Inc.
  333 So. 3d 746· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-01-06 ·cited 1×
  The court addresses whether Florida Statute section 627.736(4)(f) mandates that medical payments (med pay) coverage be extended to individuals not otherwise insured for med pay, simply because they are insured for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage.
• Goines v. Lee Mem'l Health Sys.
  2019 WL 497706· M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida's collateral estoppel law, requiring mutuality of parties, prevents applying the criminal conviction to estop the defendant hospital, as the hospital was not a party or in privity with a party in the criminal case. However, Fla. Stat. § 775.089(8) does
• Newton v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp.
  253 So. 3d 1054· Fla.· 2018-09-27 ·cited 1×
  Anthony Newton sought review of a Second District Court of Appeal decision holding that loaders are not dangerous instrumentalities, preventing him from recovering damages from Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation for injuries sustained when a loader operator negligently dr
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manzo-Pianelli
  152 So. 3d 654· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-11-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a material issue of fact exists regarding whether the insured was legally obligated to pay damages, which is a prerequisite for coverage of a permissive user under the umbrella policy.
• Allan v. Graf
  43 So. 3d 151· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-09-01 ·cited 1×
  An employer cannot be held vicariously liable for an employee's negligence in mishandling the keys to his own car, which leads to its theft and injury to a third party.
• Garcia v. GEICO Gen. Ins.
  587 F. Supp. 2d 1250· S.D. Fla.· 2008-11-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Edgar Baena's belief that he had permission to drive the rental car was objectively reasonable.
• Edwards v. C.A. Motors, Ltd.
  985 So. 2d 1147· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-06-18 ·cited 1×
  Angela Edwards, administrator of her daughter's estate, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful death claim against a car dealership that leased a vehicle to the driver whose negligence caused the fatal accident. The dealership claimed immunity under Florida's statuto
• Zuver v. Gottner
  944 So. 2d 1259· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-01-10 ·cited 1×
  A gun owner's duty of care is that of a reasonable person under like circumstances, not the highest degree of care, and the jury determines the applicable standard.
• Lewis v. Enter. Leasing Co.
  912 So. 2d 349· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-10-05 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's summary judgment limiting wrongful death beneficiaries' non-economic damages claim against a car lessor to $100,000 in the aggregate under Florida's motor vehicle lessor liability statute. The court held that the
• Eliseo Ferrer and Maria Ferrer v. FGC Enters., Inc.
  805 So. 2d 967· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-11-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that league members using golf carts are properly viewed as co-bailees or joint adventurers, thus the golf course is not liable for injuries caused by one member to another.
• Dearing v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  758 So. 2d 1236· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-05-26 ·cited 1×
  Dearing sued GMAC, the lessor of a vehicle involved in an accident, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The court reversed summary judgment for GMAC, holding that the lease did not strictly comply with the statutory exemption for leases of one year or longer because it
• Halenda v. Habitat for Humanity Int'l, Inc.
  125 F. Supp. 2d 1361· S.D. Fla.· 2000-01-03 ·cited 1×
  Habitat for Humanity International, Inc. is not vicariously liable for the negligence of Jack or Lois Wolters because neither was acting as an agent or employee within the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
• Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  727 So. 2d 287· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-02-12 ·cited 1×
  Budget Rent-A-Car appeals a summary judgment denying coverage under State Farm's family automobile liability policy for liability arising from a one-day rental car used by the insured's boyfriend. The court reverses in part, holding that State Farm's policy does not unambiguously
• Rhoderick Z. Lavender v. Ne. Transp., Ltd.
  674 So. 2d 157· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-04-19 ·cited 1×
  Northeast Transportation, a New Hampshire car rental corporation, rented a vehicle to a customer in New Hampshire with no geographic use restrictions. The vehicle was subsequently driven to Florida and involved in a fatal collision. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that
• Chorzelewski v. Manucor Leasing
  575 So. 2d 327· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-03-06 ·cited 1×
  The Chorzelewskis sued Manucor Leasing under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine after Steven Chorzelewski was injured by a negligently operated leased vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment for Manucor based on a now-overruled precedent, but the Florida Supre
• Hernandez v. Hertz Corp.
  581 F. Supp. 1274· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Hertz's arguments regarding insurance coverage priorities and interspousal immunity were premature and deferred them pending a determination of liability.
• Bodzo v. Beech Aircraft Corp. & Stevens Beechcraft, Inc.
  498 So. 2d 446· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-07-29 ·cited 1×
  Aircraft owner-consumers and their insurer sought indemnity from the aircraft manufacturer and retailer for settlement payments made to estates of passengers killed in a crash allegedly caused by a defect. The court affirmed summary judgment against the indemnity claim, holding t
• McAllister v. Holman Auto., Inc.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-08-19
  The federal Graves Amendment and Florida Statute § 324.021(9)(c)3 immunize a motor vehicle dealership from vicarious liability for negligent operation of a temporary loaner vehicle provided to a service customer whose vehicle is being repaired, where the dealership obtained the d
• Santos v. Nahum
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal, thus granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Ryan Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Kulp
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-02-26
  A Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a wrongful death action arising from a trucking accident. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts under Florida's long
• VA Logistics, LLC v. Kulp
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-02-26
  In an interlocutory appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a wrongful death action. The court found that while the accident occurred near the Georgia-Florida borde
• Murphy v. Airway Air Charter, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-27
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the defendant's bill of costs and motion for attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs, finding that the claims were state law claims and that the plaintiffs failed to preserve their admiralty jurisdiction a
• Downing v. Fla. Adventures & Rentals L.L.C.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-06
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to provide sufficient notice of the claims and directed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint clarifying the basis for admiralty jurisdiction and the specific claims.
• del Campo-Aguila v. Martins
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-07
  The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of vicarious liability against the vehicle owner but denied summary judgment on the driver's direct negligence and the plaintiff's comparative negligence.
• Harris v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-02-08
  Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the plaintiff was a joint adventurer with the operator, precluding summary judgment on the vicarious liability claim under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The direct negligence claim was properly dismissed.
• Munoz v. Williams
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-16
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the late disclosure of the expert addendum was substantially justified or harmless, and therefore granted the plaintiff's motion to strike.
• Saunders-Pinnock v. Colonial Freight Sys., Inc.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-12-14
  Natalie Saunders-Pinnock was injured in a collision with a tractor-trailer on Interstate 95 and sued Colonial Freight Systems based on evidence linking the trailer to the company. The court affirmed summary judgment for Colonial Freight, holding that while the trailer's markings
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transp. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-16
  The court held that the insurer has a duty to defend because the state court complaint includes claims alleging negligence prior to the accident, which fall outside the policy's trucking use exclusion. The duty to indemnify was not ripe for determination.
• Munoz v. Williams
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-10
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence and expert testimony.
• Munoz v. Williams
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-31
  The court held that the plaintiff's challenges to the expert's methodology and the helpfulness of his testimony were insufficient to warrant exclusion under Daubert.
• Sager v. Madalina Blanco and Ricardo F. Blanco
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-06-15
  An owner of a motor vehicle may be held vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for a driver's intentional, weapon-like use of the vehicle if such use is reasonably foreseeable to the owner. Statutory provisions in sections 772.14 and 775.089 that estop cr
• Rondell v. Ramano
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-01-05
  The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for Mr. Romano, holding that he did not have beneficial ownership of a vehicle under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The court found that Mr. Romano's actions, such as purchasing insurance, did not establish the necess