Susco Car Rental System of Fla. v. Leonard

Decision Date08 May 1959
Citation112 So.2d 832
PartiesSUSCO CAR RENTAL SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Arthur LEONARD, James Leonard, and Patricia Leonard, infants, by and through Arthur H. Leonard, Jr., their father and next friend, et al., Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Knight, Smith, Underwood & Peters and William M. Hoeveler, Miami, for petitioner.

Truett & Watkins, and Frankly Levenson, Miami, for respondents.

DREW, Justice.

The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in this cause has been certified by that court for review by certiorari, under the terms of Article V Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., 1 as one which passes upon a question of great public interest 'because the decision involves an important new point of law which will have an effect on U-drive-it car rental business throughout the state and will also affect members of the public generally.'

The stipulated facts upon which the decision is based were in substance as follows:

'(a) Humberto Salicetti rented a 1956 Chevrolet from petitioner, Susco Car Rental System of Florida, Inc., on September 18, 1956 (TR-1).

'(b) A contract of rental was entered into by and between petitioner and Mr. Salicetti. A photocopy of the Agreement is a part of the attached transcript. (TR-3). By the terms of the contract (TR-3), Mr. Salicetti certified that no one except himself would drive the car without express written consent of the petitioner. When the rental contract was signed, Mr. Salicetti was advised by petitioner's manager that the car was to be driven by no one other than himself (Mr. Salicetti) because this was a condition of the insurance contract and the rental contract.

'(c) On September 19, 1956, petitioner's car was involved in a collision with respondent's vehicle. Petitioner's car was being operated by Domingo Gonzales, who was unknown to petitioner.

'(d) Respondents sued the petitioner in the Circuit Court of Dade County. A Motion for Summary Judgment filed by petitioner was granted by the Circuit Court and judgment, on April 25, 1957, was entered in favor of petitioner. (TR-4).'

The sole issue presented by the parties for determination in the District Court was 'whether or not the owner company is relieved of responsibility for damages resulting from the operation of the vehicle by someone other than the person to whom it was rented, when such operation is contrary to the expressed terms of the printed contract, and the oral instruction * * * at the time of rental.' Limiting its decision to this point, the court held that 'the provision in the contract between the owner and the bailee was not sufficient to bar all liability of the owner for the negligent operation of the auto by a person other than the bailee, and that therefore the summary final judgment must be reversed.' 2

The preliminary contention by respondents in this Court is that the question decided was not one of 'great public interest' in the constitutional sense; that the court erred in so certifying; and that consequently this Court is without jurisdiction in the premises.

Whatever merit this argument might have had before the District Court in opposition to issuance of the certificate, 3 the language of Article V does not, on its face, leave the point open to contest in this forum. Our jurisdiction in this class of cases is that we 'may review by certiorari any decision of a district court of appeal * * * that passes upon a question certified by the district court of appeal to be of great public interest.' 4 (Emphasis supplied.) Certification is plainly a condition precedent to any review here upon this ground. A negative decision by the district court in the exercise of its discretion in a given case 5 would certainly present no basis for review under the quoted language. Similarly, where a decision involves a question which has, incontrovertibly, been 'certified by the district court of appeal to be of great public interest,' then the specified condition has been fully met. No review or redetermination of the point is necessary or even proper unless by some stretch of reasoning the exercise of the power of certification could be found reviewable under related clauses defining other areas of appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

The distinction is apparent between this provision and companion clauses providing, for example, for review by certiorari of 'any decision * * * that is in direct conflict with [other specified decisions].' 6 As already delineated by a number of opinions, the review of decisions under the latter provision is conditioned upon our determination of the existence of the jurisdictional fact of conflict. 7 In other jurisdictions such conflict has been made the basis of certification, and actual existence of such a conflict is not in that situation an open question in the reviewing court:

'In some jurisdictions where there is an intermediate appellate court, the intermediate court has authority to allow an appeal from its decision upon any question of law which, in its opinion, ought to be reviewed by the court of last resort because of the importance of the question, the doubtfulness of the lower court's decision, or a conflict between the decisions of two or more intermediate courts. * * *' 8

The decisions cited in support of this statement will, on close analysis, sustain the preceding construction of the constitutional language involved in this case. 9 We find no contrary opinion, although there is authority for the proposition, not raised or pertinent in the case at bar, that such a certificate would not cover or prevent inquiry as to whether a decision actually involves or properly 'passes on' a particular question. 10

Concluding, then, that the cause must be considered and disposed of in regular course as any certiorari proceeding before this Court, we proceed to the material inquiry. On the fundamental issue, the simple but sound statement of the district court can be unequivocally endorsed:

'When this defendant turns over an automobile to another for a price, he in actuality intrusts that automobile to the renter for all ordinary purposes for which an automobile is rented. The fact that the owner had a private contract or secret agreement with the renter cannot make such restrictions a bar to the rights of the public. The restrictions agreed upon do not change the fact that the automobile was being used with the owner's consent. Nor does it appear that the car was not being used for the purpose for which it was rented i. e., the pleasure, convenience or business of the renter.'

That opinion contains a thorough and exhaustive treatment of the development of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in Florida, with which we are in substantial accord. 11 To this we might add an observation that, whatever may have been the deviations from this course, the logical rule, and, we think, the prevailing rationale of the cases, is that when control of such a vehicle is voluntarily relinquished to another, only a breach of custody amounting to a species of conversion or theft will relieve an owner of responsibility for its use or misuse. The validity or effect of restrictions on such use, as between the parties, is a matter totally unrelated to the liabilities imposed by law upon one who owns and places in circulation an instrumentality of this nature.

The Florida cases initially applying this doctrine in the field of automobile liability law clearly support this conclusion. 'The principles of the common law do not permit the owner of an instrumentality that 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 * * * properly operated when it is by his authority on the public highway.' 12

The non-delegable nature of this obligation is apparent from a consideration of the doctrine in the master-servant relation:

"The servant is empowered by the master to discharge certain duties, and it is incumbent upon him to exercise the same care and attention which the law requires of the master; and, if that care and attention be about the management and custody of dangerous appliances, the master cannot shift the responsibility connected with the custody of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
138 cases
  • Jackson By and Through Whitaker v. Hertz Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1990
    ... Page 929 ... 590 So.2d 929 ... 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2927, 17 Fla. L. Weekly D70 ... Billy ...   On February 5, 1985, Hertz entered into a two-day rental agreement with a woman purporting to be Linda Major, and ... In Susco Car Rental Sys. of Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832, 837 ... 1st DCA 1965); Susco Car Rental System" of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla.1959) ...   \xC2" ... ...
  • Vargas v. Enterprises Leasing Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 2008
    ... ... Price's son, Jimmy Middleton, crashed the rental vehicle into the rear end of a car driven by Rafael Vargas ... Youngblood, 927 So.2d 955, 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). "The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is ... See Susco Car Rental Sys. of Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 ... 21 It is a necessary constituent in a federal system of shared powers. The Government of the United States has ... ...
  • Vreeland v. Ferrer
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2011
    ... ... Ferrer, 28 So.3d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), on the basis of express and direct conflict ... Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So.2d 268, 271 (1947). In Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 ... ...
  • Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental Usa, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • March 5, 2007
    ... ... Amendment does not erase the Lessor Defendants' liability, because Fla. Stat. § 324.021(9)(b)(2) is really a "financial responsibility law" that ... Susco Car Rental System v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla.1959). In 1999, the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT