CHEROKEE ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN ROGERS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Cherokee Enterprises appealed a summary judgment in favor of automobile owner Susan Rogers, arguing the owner was vicariously liable for damages caused by a thief who stole the vehicle from Rogers's bailee. The court affirmed, holding that an automobile owner is not vicariously liable for a bailee's negligence in failing to prevent theft of the bailed vehicle, distinguishing this from liability for the bailee's negligent operation of the vehicle.
An automobile owner is not vicariously liable for a bailee's negligence in failing to prevent theft of a bailed vehicle from the bailee. The owner's vicarious liability extends to the bailee's negligent operation of the vehicle and to damages caused by a thief's operation if the owner negligently permitted the theft, but not to the bailee's failure to secure the vehicle against theft.
[1] An automobile owner is not vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of their vehicle by a thief who stole it from the owner's bailee, absent negli…
[2] An automobile owner may be vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of their vehicle by a bailee.
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“we know of no Florida case that has held an automobile owner vicariously liable for a bailee's negligence in failing to prevent a bailed vehicle from being stolen from the bailee as distinguished from the owner's vicarious liability for the bailee's negligent operation of the vehicle”
Establishes the court's finding that no precedent supports vicarious liability for bailee's negligence in securing the vehicle
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Rogers owned an automobile that she delivered to George Rose as bailee so Rose could test drive it for possible purchase. After Rose consumed al…
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 Bailment cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves the vicarious liability of the owner of a motor vehicle for damages to a third party caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle by a thief who stole it from the owner’s bailee.
Appellee Susan Rogers, the owner, delivered possession of her automobile to one George Rose, as bailee, so that he could drive it a few days to determine if he wished to buy it. Later, after drinking alcoholic beverages with a stranger, the bailee passed out and the stranger stole the bailee’s wallet and the keys to the bailed automobile from the bailee’s pants pocket and then stole the automobile and negligently operated it and collided with and damaged appellant’s trenching machine. Appellant appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of the owner and her insurance company. We affirm.
Of course, appellee, as owner, would have been vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of her automobile by her bailee, Southern Cotton Oil Company v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). Appellee, as owner, would have also been liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of her automobile by a thief whom the owner had negligently permitted to steal her automobile such as by leaving her keys in the ignition lock, Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1977), or in an open glove compartment, Schwartz v. American Home Assurance Company, 360 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1978). See also Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1978). However we know of no Florida case that has held an automobile owner vicariously liable for a bailee’s negligence in failing to prevent a bailed vehicle from being stolen from the bailee as distinguished from the owner’s vicarious liability for the bailee’s negligent operation of the vehicle. Pearson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 187 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), and Commercial Carrier Corporation v. S.J.G. Corporation, 409 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1982), hold to the contrary, and we follow those cases.
AFFIRMED.
COLEMAN, T., Associate Judge, concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allan v. Graf, 43 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…al company. Id. Second, the court held that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine did not apply because the thief was driving the car without “the knowledge and consent of the owner.” Id. at 52.1 Similarly, in Cherokee Enterprises, Inc. v. Rogers, 451 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), the owner of a car loaned it for a test drive to a potential buyer. The buyer drank with a stranger and passed out; the stranger lifted the buyer’s wallet and the keys to the car, then “stole the automobile and negligently opera…
Authorities Cited
- Kraemer v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1990)
- S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1920)
- Vining v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1977)
- Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1978)
- Pearson v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 187 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Solomon Schwartz v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 360 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1978)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. S. J. G. Corp., 409 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)