Since the 1920s, Florida courts have applied a “dangerous instrumentality doctrine” when assessing liability for auto accidents. Basically, this doctrine holds that the owner of any motor vehicle is vicariously liable if they “voluntarily entrust” said vehicle to a person “whose negligent operation causes damage to another.” The idea behind this rule, as the Florida Supreme Court has explained, is that “the one who originates the danger by entrusting the automobile to another is in the best position to make certain that there will be adequate resources” to pay for any damages arising from the vehicle’s negligent use, even if the owner is not actually operating the car at the time.

Judge Says UPS Can Stand Trial Over Fatal Jacksonville Accident

There are some exceptions to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. One is known as the “shop exception,” which applies when the owner of a vehicle entrusts his or her vehicle to a “repairman or serviceman.” In other words, if you take your car to the shop for repairs, and while the vehicle is in the shop’s custody one of its employees gets into an accident, you will not be held liable. This exception only applies, according to the Supreme Court, if the owner “does not exercise control over the injury-causing operation of the vehicle during the servicing, service-related testing, or transport of the vehicle, and is otherwise not negligent.”

Recently a federal judge in Jacksonville rejected a defendant’s effort to invoke the shop exception in an ongoing car accident case. The underlying accident took place in 2013, when a UPS package car struck another car while driving on Interstate 90. The other car “careened off the road and crashed into a tree,” according to court records, which killed a married couple and injured their grandson.

The estates of the deceased and the parents of the minor child sued a number of parties for wrongful death and personal injury, including UPS as the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident. UPS moved for summary judgment, arguing that at the time of the accident, the package car was driven by an independent contractor hired to deliver the vehicle from its manufacturer to UPS. In fact, the driver was actually sub-contracted by another contractor hired by UPS, which maintained it had no control over the driver’s actions.

But as the judge explained in an order denying UPS summary judgment, this is exactly the scenario contemplated by the Florida Supreme Court in creating the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Ultimately, the subcontractor operating the vehicle was a “permissive user,” and that meant that UPS could be held liable for her negligent operation of the package car. The shop exception only applies to “servicing or repairing the motor vehicle itself,” not delivery from the manufacturer, as is the case here. Indeed, the judge noted that UPS–a package delivery company–could have had one of its own drivers deliver the car, and the subcontractor was therefore providing a service for the convenience of UPS.

Have You Been Injured in a Florida Car Accident?

If you are seriously injured in an auto accident, Florida law allows you to seek compensation from the owner of the vehicle responsible for the accident. An experienced Clearwater auto accident attorney can help you fight for your rights. Contact the Law Office of Paul B. Genet, P.A., if you need to speak with someone today.

Resource:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1346378335429314959&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47

Restaurant’s “Internal Policy” Not Enough to Create Liability

In general, the answer in Florida is “no.” Florida law states that anyone “who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person.” There are exceptions to this rule for someone who provides alcohol to a minor or a person “habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages.”

Aside from these limited exceptions, the law makes it difficult to sue a bar for over-serving a patron who subsequently drives drunk and injures or kills someone. For example, a Florida appeals court recently rejected just such a lawsuit. In this case, a woman had gone to a restaurant and consumed several alcoholic beverages. At some point, the restaurant staff stopped serving the woman alcohol and gave her water instead. But the staff apparently made no effort to prevent the woman from leaving the restaurant in her own car.

Later that evening, the woman drove her car into an intersection and hit another vehicle, injuring at least three people. These victims sued the restaurant, arguing it had a legal duty to prevent the woman from leaving its establishment drunk and driving her car.

As noted above, Florida law generally holds bars and restaurants harmless for the drunk driving its patrons. The plaintiffs here tried to get around this rule by arguing the restaurant had “undertook a voluntary duty to prevent the Driver from driving while intoxicated.” More specifically, the plaintiffs said the restaurant had an “internal policy” requiring employees to take a drunk patron’s keys and call them a cab. By failing to follow this internal policy, the plaintiffs said, the restaurant committed negligence.

The courts disagreed. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, upholding a lower court’s decision, said an internal policy does not “create a duty to third parties.” Furthermore, the court said there was no evidence the restaurant had “control over the intoxicated party.” There was, for instance, no evidence the staff knew the women had “started her car while under the influence” of alcohol. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal said it was proper to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Need Legal Help Following a Car Accident?

While bars may not be liable for the acts of its patrons, a drunk driver can certainly be held responsible in court for any injuries caused to innocent persons. If you have been injured in a drunk driving accident and need advice from an experienced Florida personal injury lawyer, contact the Law Office of Paul B. Genet, P.A. at 727-510-8802 today.