Jack Lee Buick, Inc. v. Bolton
| Decision Date | 16 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. NN-39,NN-39 |
| Citation | 377 So.2d 226 |
| Parties | JACK LEE BUICK, INC., Appellant, v. Wayne BOLTON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles C. Sherrill of Sherrill, Moore & Hill, Pensacola, for appellant.
Louis K. Rosenbloum of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellees.
Appellant, Jack Lee Buick, Inc. (Jack Lee), appeals a partial summary judgment on the issue of its liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. We find no error and affirm.
Jack Lee, a used car dealership, regularly contracted for the cleaning of its used cars with several local establishments, one of which was U-Wash-M. This cleaning, or "detail" work consisted generally of washing and waxing the car, steam cleaning the engine, painting the engine if needed, and cleaning the interior, glass and wheels. The arrangement between Jack Lee and U-Wash-M was that for a flat unit price, U-Wash-M picked up vehicles from Jack Lee's place of business, transported the vehicle with its personnel to its shop where it was cleaned, and then delivered it back to Jack Lee. This service did not require the operation of the automobile except for the picking up and redelivery to the dealership. During one of these trip, one of Jack Lee's cars, being operated by U-Wash-M's driver, was involved in an accident wherein appellee Wayne Bolton was injured. There is some dispute as to the exact status of U-Wash-M's driver, Kensler, but it appears that he was either an employee of U-Wash-M, or an independent contractor.
The trial judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and affidavits of the parties, denied Jack Lee's motion seeking summary judgment in its favor, and granted appellee Bolton's motion for summary judgment of liability against Jack Lee premised upon the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Jack Lee seeks reversal of the summary judgment based upon its contentions that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not apply to accidents occurring while the owner's vehicle is solely under the control of an independent contractor, whose operation of the vehicle to and from the owner's premises for the purposes of clean-up or repair is part of the service contracted for by the servicing agency. Jack Lee argues that the Supreme Court of Florida gave its approval to a broad application of the independent contractor exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So.2d 792 (Fla.1978). Appellee Bolton argues that the exception has only limited application, and is confined to accidents occurring while the vehicle is in the hands of the servicing agency for work-related purposes, as in Castillo and other cases. The trial judge agreed with appellee's interpretation, and we accept this view also.
No useful purpose would be served by cataloging the many cases previously decided on the question of owner liability for injuries occurring during the operation of his automobile by employees of a service or repair establishment. The opinions in Harfred Auto Imports Inc. v. Yaxley, 343 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and Castillo v. Bickley, supra, furnish virtually the entire spectrum of the Florida cases on this subject, so far as is needed for comprehension of the principles governing our decision in this case.
The trial judge in his written order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment pointed out:
" * * * this is a case where it would appear that the use and operation of the vehicle by the servicing agent in this case was a convenience for the defendant and there was an acceptable alternative, to wit: The defendant could use his own method of placing the vehicle in the possession of the cleaning agency and returning it which generally is what happens to people who take their car to garages and leave them, which is what Castillo seems to be pointing to, i. e., a mechanic road test without the owner's knowledge or even having a choice. . . ." (Order on motions for summary judgment).
We do not detect, in the Castillo court's decision to "pare back" the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in service station and repairmen situations, any intention to extend the paring process so as to relieve the owner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ratliff v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
...inspections like this one constitutes a service under the shop exception.Classic's delivery of the package car more closely parallels Bolton , in which Jack Lee Buick, a used car dealership, was found liable for an accident which occurred while one of its cars was driven between the dealers......
-
Smilowitz v. Russell, 84-220
...where the operation of the vehicle is primarily for the accommodation or convenience of the owner, see, e.g., Jack Lee Buick, Inc. v. Bolton, 377 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 638 (Fla.1980); Jordan v. Kelson, 299 So.2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 308 So.......
-
Roberts v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
...or transport of the vehicle, and is not otherwise negligent. 363 So.2d at 793. (emphasis supplied). Then, in Jack Lee Buick, Inc. v. Bolton, 377 So.2d 226, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 638 (Fla.1980), this court observed the supreme court had receded from the broad owner......
-
Michalek v. Shumate
...Michalek v. Shumate, 511 So.2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), in which the district court recognized conflict with Jack Lee Buick, Inc. v. Bolton, 377 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 638 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Ralph's Car Cleaning Service s......