Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Garmas, RENT-A-CAR

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: Before SCHWARTZ; SCHWARTZ
• Citation: 440 So.2d 1311
• Parties: AVISSYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. Georgina GARMAS and Jose Garmas, Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 82-2185,RENT-A-CAR
• Decision Date: 25 October 1983

Page 1311

440 So.2d 1311 AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant,
v.
Georgina GARMAS and Jose Garmas, Appellees. No. 82-2185. District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District. Oct. 25, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1983.

Page 1312

Highsmith, Strauss & Glatzer and Phillip Glatzer, Miami, for appellant.

Daniels & Hicks and Patrice A. Talisman, Feldman, Abramson, Smith, Magidson & Levy, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Avis Rent-A-Car was a defendant below in a personal injury action arising from an accident admittedly caused by the grossly negligent operation of one of its rental vehicles. It appeals from an order granting the plaintiffs a new trial after a jury verdict in its favor. We affirm.

The record shows that Scott Lawrence and a friend, Laird Ferguson, went to an Avis office in Ft. Lauderdale to rent a car for a weekend trip to the Florida Keys. Lawrence had a credit card but his driver's license had been suspended; Ferguson had a valid license but no credit card. Accordingly, the Avis representative required both Lawrence and Ferguson to execute the rental agreement which stated that Ferguson was to be the "only driver." Lawrence, however, specifically placed his signature or initials at three separate places where, under the contract, the applicable Avis manual, or both, only the "renter" of the car was to sign. ¹ Indeed, Avis' answer in this case admitted that Lawrence had "entered into a rental agreement with Defendant, Avis," while denying responsibility for the misuse of the car because the contract contemplated its operation only by Ferguson. The

Page 1313

accident in question occurred three days later when, on his way to gas the car for the trip home, Lawrence, who had taken the keys while Ferguson was asleep, drove at 70-80 miles per hour onto the wrong side of U.S. 1 and struck a vehicle occupied by Georgina Garmas head-on.

Mrs. Garmas, who was severely injured, and her husband sued Lawrence and Avis for compensatory and punitive damages in the Monroe County Circuit Court. Lawrence defaulted, and Avis did not contest that his negligence had caused the accident. After the trial court directed a verdict in Avis' favor as to punitive damages, the jury, in answer to special interrogatories, found in favor of Avis and assessed $20,000 for Mrs. Garmas and $5,000 for Mr. Garmas in compensatory damages, as well as $25,000 in punitive damages, all against Lawrence alone. ² In those portions of the order now before us, ³ the trial court then concluded that the verdict for Avis on liability and the awards of compensatory damages were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial on both issues.

Under the Florida dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the owner of a vehicle is liable to third persons for its negligent operation by anyone to whom it has been entrusted, even if the bailee grossly violates the owner's express instructions concerning its use. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920); Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla.1959); Ivey v. National Fisheries, Inc., 215 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), and cases cited. As set forth in the trial court's lengthy and well-reasoned order, the contents of which fully complied with the procedural prerequisites established in Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978), we agree--and surely do not find the abuse of discretion required to reverse such a conclusion, Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981)--that the jury's finding that Avis did not under the circumstances and within the meaning of this rule surrender control of its car to its self-designated "renter," Lawrence, was, at least, ⁴ contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. See Metzel v. Robinson, 102 So.2d 385 (Fla.1958) (aunt who, solely for financing purposes, took title to car used and paid for only by nephew liable as matter of law for operation of vehicle). Avis contends that Lawrence's driving the vehicle despite the agreement that only Ferguson was to do so amounted to a "species of conversion" which, under dicta which appears in Susco at 112 So.2d 836, insulates it from responsibility. The actual holding...