Rippy v. Shepard, No. 1D07-6626.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Roberts |
| Citation | 15 So.3d 921 |
| Decision Date | 06 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D07-6626. |
| Parties | James Earl RIPPY, Appellant, v. James SHEPARD, Appellee. |
v.
James SHEPARD, Appellee.
[15 So.3d 922]
Robert J. Healy, Jr., of Salter, Healy, LLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Jennifer Cates Lester of Dell Graham, PA, Gainesville, for Appellee.
Caryn L. Bellus and Sharon C. Degnan of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami for Amicus Florida Defense Lawyer's Association.
ROBERTS, J.
The appellant, James Earl Rippy, appeals a final order granting a motion to dismiss his complaint against the appellee, James Shepard. The issue below and in the instant case is whether a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality. We find that it is not and affirm the order of dismissal.
Because the issue of whether a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality is one of law, we review the issue de novo. See Emerald Corr. Mgmt. v. Bay County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 955 So.2d 647, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
The dangerous instrumentality doctrine finds its roots in the law of master and servant, and principal and agent. Canull v. Hodges, 584 So.2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). "The master who entrusts a servant with a dangerous agency ... is liable for any injury occasioned by its negligent use." Id. The doctrine states that "the owner of an instrumentality which [has] the capability of causing death or destruction should in justice answer for misuse of this instrumentality by anyone operating it with his knowledge and consent." Meister v. Fisher, 462 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla.1984). In Florida, the doctrine is invoked only by a judicial decision that "an instrumentality of known qualities is so peculiarly dangerous in its operation" as to justify the doctrine. Canull, 584 So.2d at 1097. In 1920, the doctrine was extended to include automobiles. See S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). In doing so, the court reasoned:
The principles of common law do not permit the owner of an instrumentality that is not dangerous per se, but is peculiarly dangerous in its operation, to authorize another to use such instrumentality on the public highways without imposing upon such owner liability for negligent use. The liability grows out of the obligation of the owner to have the vehicle, that is not inherently dangerous per se, but peculiarly dangerous in its use, properly operated when it is by his authority on the public highway.
Anderson v. S. Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975, 978 (1917). Therefore, the doctrine "imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rippy v. Shepard, No. SC09–1677.
...as Amicus Curiae.LABARGA, J. James Earl Rippy seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So.3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which held that a farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law. In so holding, [80 So.3d 306] the dis......
-
SALSBURY v. KAPKA, No. 4D08-3105.
...extension of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine is generally a pure question of law. Gooch, 904 So.2d at 544; accord Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So.3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). As such, the trial court should, in theory, have been able to resolve Kapka's motion without any specific proffer of e......
-
Cummings v. State, No. 1D09-0092.
...THOMAS, J. Appellant seeks review of the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of 15 So.3d 921 Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial in all Additionally, due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro......
-
Rippy v. Shepard, No. SC09–1677.
...as Amicus Curiae.LABARGA, J. James Earl Rippy seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So.3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which held that a farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law. In so holding, [80 So.3d 306] the dis......
-
SALSBURY v. KAPKA, No. 4D08-3105.
...extension of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine is generally a pure question of law. Gooch, 904 So.2d at 544; accord Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So.3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). As such, the trial court should, in theory, have been able to resolve Kapka's motion without any specific proffer of e......
-
Cummings v. State, No. 1D09-0092.
...THOMAS, J. Appellant seeks review of the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of 15 So.3d 921 Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial in all Additionally, due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro......