Martinez v. Hart, 72--361
| Citation | 270 So.2d 438 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--361,72--361 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Silvio MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. Edward HART and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Jay A. Swidler, Miami, for appellant.
C. Randall Morcroft, Hollywood, Joel R. Teague, Coral Gables, and Donald L. Lacy, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellant, Silvio Martinez, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment in an action for damages resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiff sustained injuries when the car in which he was riding was struck by a vehicle owned by defendant, Edward Hart, and at the time of the accident driven by Elmer Roberts. The main issue before this court is whether defendant, Edward Hart, can be held liable for Robert's negligence through the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
One year prior to the accident Roberts had defendant's approval to drive his automobile. Two months prior to the accident defendant revoked his permission and prohibited Roberts from driving the car due to Roberts failure to have a valid driver's license and the refusal of the state to reinstate his license. Defendant expressly told Roberts about this decision; however, Roberts violated these instructions and was driving the car when the accident occurred.
Florida courts have repeatedly affirmed the doctrine that a motor vehicle is a dangerous instrumentality when in operation on public roads. Gordon v. Lee, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 42. As a corollary to this doctrine, the owner of an automobile who has knowledge of and gives his express or implied consent to the operation of the vehicle by another is liable for any injury to a third person caused by the negligence of the person to whom he has entrusted the automobile. Skroh v. Newby, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 548; Nichols v. McGraw, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 486; Hertz Corporation v. Hellens, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 73. If, on the other hand, a defendant owner of an automobile does not give his consent to the operation of his vehicle by another he cannot and will not be held liable for injuries resulting to a third party due to the unauthorized driver's negligence. Hankerson v. Wilcox, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 747; Fideli v. Colson, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 794.
Plaintiff-appellant relies on the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and Leonard v. Susco Car Rental System of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 243 1 to hold defendant liable for Robert's negligent use of the automobile. In Susco an action was brought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rouse v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc.
...(1931); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920); Ray v. Earl, 277 So.2d 73 (Fla.App.1973); Martinez v. Hart, 270 So.2d 438 (Fla.App.1972); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chastain, 251 So.2d 354 (Fla.App.1972), cert. denied, 263 So.2d 578 (Fla.1972); Hertz Corp. v. Hellens,......
-
Christenson-Sullins v. Raymer, 1D99-2583.
...grandson who lacked a valid driver's license that he could not drive without permission and without owner in car); Martinez v. Hart, 270 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (affirming summary judgment where owner expressly revoked permission and prohibited driver from driving automobile because of......
-
Hertz Corp. v. Jackson
...Commercial Carrier Corp. v. S.J.G. Corp., 409 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So.2d 328 (Fla.1982); Martinez v. Hart, 270 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Keller v. Florida Power & Light Co., 156 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). This is true even if the vehicle is left unattended ......
-
Conklin v. Carroll
...the negligent driver not to use the car at any time, see, e.g., Duarte v. Wetzel, 682 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Martinez v. Hart, 270 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), or entrusted the car or truck to an employee to use on the job only and the employee went to the job site during nonworki......