ALBERTO ALMEIDA AND SHERYL ALMEIDA, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
TED M. TRUSHIN ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether a tavern could be held liable for injuries caused by a thief who stole a car left unattended with keys in the ignition at the lounge's entrance. The Court held that the tavern was not liable because there was no evidence the lounge's employees were negligent, and the summary judgment in favor of the lounge was properly entered.
The lounge was not liable. Although an automobile owner may be held accountable if a reasonable person should foresee theft of a vehicle left unattended with keys in the ignition, the lounge's employees were not negligent, and the summary judgment in favor of the lounge was appropriate. The District Court's decision did not conflict with Vining.
[1] A defendant's liability for injuries caused by a thief operating a stolen vehicle may be established if a reasonable person would foresee the theft of the vehicle when le…
[2] An intervening criminal act, such as theft, does not automatically break the chain of causation between the original negligent act of leaving keys in a vehicle and subseq…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the intervening criminal act of theft breaks any causative, chain between the original negligent act of leaving the keys in the car and the subsequent damages incurred in an accident”
This describes the District Court's interpretation of Vining, which the Supreme Court modified to require foreseeability analysis rather than an absolute bar to liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTrushin loaned his car to Acker, who drove it to Harbor Lounge and left it unattended at the front entrance with the engine running and lights on. Ack…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intervening Criminal Act cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
Certiorari was granted in this cause to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, 4th District, (330 So. 2d 550) on ground of direct conflict with the opinion of this Court in Vining v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1977), on the question of liability in the event a thief steals an automobile, with key in the ignition, and subsequently injures someone while negligently operating the stolen vehicle.
Trushin loaned his car to Acker, who drove it to the Harbor Lounge. When Acker stopped at the front of the lounge, he left the lights on and the motor running. Acker waved to one of the attendants who waved back. Acker then entered the lounge. None of the attendants parked the car and it was not seen thereafter. It was stolen.
While the thief was allegedly operating the vehicle in a negligent manner, plaintiffs were injured and they sued Trushin, Acker, Harbor Lounge, Inc., and/or Southern Caterers of North Bay Village, Inc. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the lounge, finding as a matter of law that Harbor Lounge, Inc., and/or Southern Caterers had not attained the status of bailee. The trial court noted that the gravamen of the action was the negligence of Acker in leaving the keys in an unattended automobile. The summary judgment entered in favor of Trushin was not appealed and the action against Acker is pending at the trial level. We are only concerned with the summary judgment entered in favor of the lounge.
The Plaintiffs’ appeal and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed without opinion. In a specially concurring opinion Judge Anstead expressed the reliance of the district court upon Vining v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc., 330 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) where the court held that the intervening criminal act of theft breaks any causative, chain between the original negligent act of leaving the keys in the car and the subsequent damages incurred in an accident. This Court in Vining v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc., supra, modified this rule and held that the owner of the stolen automobile could be held accountable if a reasonable man should foresee the theft of an automobile left unattended with the keys in the ignition.
The Vining, supra, decision does not conflict with the decision in the case sub judice.
The keys were left in the ignition by Acker and there is nothing in the record which suggests that the lounge’s employees were negligent. The summary judgment was appropriate and there is no conflict of decision.
The Writ of Certiorari is discharged.
ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD and SUND-BERG, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlisle v. The Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 611 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…la. 3d DCA 1990); De Ruyter v. State, 521 So. 2d 135, 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Esser Int’l, Inc., 467 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Blum v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co., 409 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Almeida v. Trushin, 368 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979); Rudisill v. Taxicabs of Tampa, Inc., 147 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Rokosa v. Hartford Jai-Alai, Inc., 37 Conn.Sup. 620, 430 A. 2d 1318 (1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Vining v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1977)
- Vining v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 330 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)