Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 80-337
| Decision Date | 31 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-337,80-337 |
| Parties | Lindsey FUTCH and Jackie C. Futch, his wife, Appellants, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James W. Smith and C. Anthony Schoder, Jr., Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Chobee Ebbetts, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The trial court dismissed appellants' third amended complaint with prejudice after ruling in the same order that the law of Maryland, including its doctrine of contributory negligence, would be the law applied in this case. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice, as well as determining to apply Maryland law. We agree on both points and reverse.
From the third amended complaint, the allegations of which we assume to be true for the purpose of this discussion, we discern the facts which follow. Appellee Ryder is in the business of leasing trucks, and it leased a tractor to Ardmore Farms, Lindsey Futch's employer, to be used to haul refrigerated trailers throughout the United States and Canada. The tractor was leased and serviced in DeLand, Florida. In order to check the refrigeration unit, it becomes necessary for the driver to periodically climb up on the rear of the tractor, between the tractor and the trailer, and this was known or should have been known to Ryder. Therefore, it is alleged, it was the duty of Ryder to equip the rear of the tractor with a cat walk, decking or deck plating, hand rails or steps to provide reasonably safe access and footing for the driver. It is further alleged that the absence of this equipment produced an unreasonable risk of harm when the driver was compelled to climb upon the narrow frame of the tractor or the rounded fuel tanks attached to its frame, producing an uneven and inadequate footing.
It was then alleged that the described defects caused appellant Lindsey Futch to fall from the tractor and suffer an injury while performing such inspection during a stop at a rest area on I-95 in Maryland. Suit was filed against Ryder and others on counts of negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty and strict liability.
Although Ryder filed a motion for summary judgment in addition to a motion to dismiss, the motion for summary judgment was not ruled on. The motion to dismiss was grounded on the alleged absence of a duty from Ryder to Futch. Ryder alleged that because Futch was fully aware of the condition of the tractor and any defects therein were open and obvious, no cause of action was stated either in strict liability, general negligence or implied warranty. The trial court held that he would apply the law of Maryland including its doctrine of contributory negligence, and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice, without assigning any reason for the dismissal.
Appellee Ryder supports the order appealed from by saying that the trial court was correct in applying the lex loci delecti rule since the accident happened in Maryland. Ryder maintains that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff did not and could not allege the breach of a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff where plaintiff fell from that part of the tractor-trailer with which he was familiar, under the Maryland contributory negligence doctrine.
In fairness to the trial judge, the rule of lex loci delecti appeared to control this case when the order was entered. However, since that time, this court has held that the harsh rule of contributory negligence is contrary to the public policy of this state and should not be applied under the lex loci delecti rule. Olsen v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 386 So.2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Shortly prior to oral argument in this case the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Company, 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980), receding from the inflexible lex loci delecti rule and adopting instead the "significant relationships test" as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971), §§ 145, 146. Under Bishop, it is clear that Florida has more significant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abad v. Bayer Corp.
...by the plaintiffs, the law of the place of the accident was not applied because it was repugnant to Florida law. Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So.2d 808 (Fla. App.1980). These cases illustrate that in American courts lex loci delicti is merely a practical presumption, and not a rul......
-
North Miami General Hosp., Inc. v. Goldberg
...1984), commercial bailor, Gabbard v. Stephenson's Orchard Inc., 565 S.W.2d 753 (Mo.Ct.App.1978), and lessor, Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So.2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). 6 The plaintiff claims no error in this ...
-
American Aerial Lift, Inc. v. Perez
...Samuel Friedland Family Enter., 604 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review granted, 618 So.2d 1369 (Fla.1993); Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So.2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bachner v. Pearson, 479 P.2d 319 (Alaska 1970); Cintrone v. Hertz Truck Leasing & Rental Serv., 45 N.J. 434, 21......
-
Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises v. Amoroso
...the doctrine to commercial lessors. American Aerial Lift, Inc. v. Perez, 629 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So.2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Ford v. Highlands Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 345 (Fla.1979). The courts o......
-
The Conduct-regulating Exception in Modern United States Choice-of-law
...A.2d 577, 584 (D.C. 1967); AIU Ins. Co. v. Reese, 498 So. 2d 966, 966-67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Rosett v. Schatzman, 510 N.E.2d 968, 970-71 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987); Jackson v. Miller-Davis Co., 358 N.E.2d 3......
-
The Conduct-regulating Exception in Modern United States Choice-of-law
...A.2d 577, 584 (D.C. 1967); AIU Ins. Co. v. Reese, 498 So. 2d 966, 966-67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Futch v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 391 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Rosett v. Schatzman, 510 N.E.2d 968, 970-71 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987); Jackson v. Miller-Davis Co., 358 N.E.2d 3......