Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine Applies To Commercial Vehicles
Florida’s dangerous instrumentality (DI) doctrine is a legal theory which holds that the owner of a vehicle is responsible for any harm it causes if the vehicle is being operated with their permission. Motor vehicles did not originally fall under the “dangerous instrumentality” heading, but in a case decided in 1920, they were added to the list. Nowadays, the doctrine is used as a springboard of sorts upon which to build a case of negligent entrustment, seeking to hold the owner of a commercial vehicle liable for the torts of its user.
Motor Vehicles Are Dangerous!
The average person on the street may consider letting a family member or friend borrow their vehicle if it is needed, thinking very little of the potential implications of an accident. They may think that if the person driving their car or truck gets into an accident, it will be on their head – but Florida law does not bear this out. State law holds that a person or entity with an ownership interest in a vehicle will still be liable if the bailee (the person to whom the vehicle was lent) causes an accident – after all, the owner allowed the person to operate their vehicle, and knew or should have known they would operate it recklessly.
This doctrine has been held to apply to commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and their owners as well. However, sometimes these types of cases can become complex when it is unclear as to the level of control a company exerts over its employees. If a CMV is involved in an accident, there is an argument to be made that the driver’s employer should be liable under the DI doctrine because the driver had the company’s permission to operate the vehicle. However, it may not be the driver’s conduct that is the ultimate cause of the crash.
Know Your Legal Theories
The other factor that must be considered in cases potentially involving the DI doctrine is the degree of control that the “master” (employer) has over the “servant” (employee). There is a theory called vicarious liability which seeks to hold an employer liable for the torts of their employees – but the DI doctrine seeks to hold an employer liable for their own alleged negligence in entrusting their employee with the vehicle in the first place. The degree of control over the employee is irrelevant. It is important to consult the right legal professional to ensure that you file the right type of case.
You may be concerned that most road accidents in Florida fall under the state’s no-fault system in terms of seeking damages – but if your injuries are sufficiently severe, as they often are in cases involving CMVs, the no-fault system does not apply. Florida law holds that if your injuries meet a certain ‘threshold,’ you may file suit in court against a negligent actor in the same way as if you were hurt in another situation. With the right attorney, you may have a chance to recover for the harm you have suffered.
Call A Tampa Truck Accident Attorney
Whether via the dangerous instrumentality doctrine or vicarious liability, seeking damages from those who bear physical or moral responsibility for your CMV accident is important. A Tampa truck accident attorney from the Rinaldo Law Group will work hard to give you the best chance possible to prevail. Call our office today to schedule a free consultation.
Source:
casetext.com/case/so-cotton-oil-co-v-anderson
