PULLMAN, INC., D/B/A T & M LEASING, AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES JOHNSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LEONNA JOHNSON, A DECEASED MINOR, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF LEONNA JOHNSON, AND ON BEHALF OF SAINTAIN ELIODOR AND CHARLES JOHNSON, AS SURVIVORS OF LEONNA JOHNSON, DECEASED, AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, W.E. SCHLECHTER AND SONS, INC., EVERGLADES CELERY CORPORATION AND JAMES LAMAR DRISDOM, 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.
Pullman, Inc. and its insurer INA appealed a judgment imposing liability on them in a wrongful death case. The court held that a trailer portion of a tractor-trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality justifying vicarious liability for the tractor driver's negligence, but affirmed liability against INA based on the insurance policy's coverage of the cab driver as a permissive user.
The trailer portion of a tractor-trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality for purposes of imposing vicarious liability on the trailer's owner for the tractor driver's negligence. However, the cab driver was covered under the INA insurance policy by its terms as a permissive user of the insured trailer, making INA liable regardless of the dangerous instrumentality issue.
[1] The trailer portion of a tractor-trailer rig is not a dangerous instrumentality for the purpose of applying vicarious liability for the negligence of the tractor's driver…
[2] A trailer owner is not vicariously liable for the negligence of a tractor driver solely because the trailer, when attached, may have impacted the cause or extent of an ac…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trailer portion of a tractor-trailer rig is not a dangerous instrumentality for the purpose of applying the vicarious liability policy enunciated in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson”
Establishes the core holding that trailers do not qualify under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor, Leonna Johnson, was killed in an accident involving a tractor-trailer combination. Pullman owned the trailer portion, while INA insured it. T…
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 Permissive User Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
An owner of the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer, and the company insuring it, Insurance Company of North America (INA), are appealing a final judgment on a crossclaim for contribution. The cross-claim alleged that the trailer, when attached to the cab, became a dangerous instrumentality, and that the driver of the tractor was, in any event, covered under the INA policy.
We recognize that the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer may have an impact on the cause and extent of an accident. But this factor alone does not justify imposition of vicarious liability on the trailer’s owner for the negligence of the tractor’s driver under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trailer portion of a tractor-trailer rig is not a dangerous instrumentality for the purpose of applying the vicarious liability policy enunciated in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). See U-Haul Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 445 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Garcia v. Mid-Florida Hauling, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Foster v. Lee, 226 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Powell v. Henry, 224 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. dismissed, 231 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1970). See also Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1984) (a golf cart is clearly a motorized vehicle, and qualifies as a dangerous instrumental! ty). Therefore, as to the appellant Pullman, the judgment is reversed.1
However, the trial court did not err in entering judgment against INA because the policy of insurance, by its terms and definitions, covered the driver of the cab as a permissive user of the insured trailer. This coverage existed without regard to any findings on the dangerous instrumentality issue. Although it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that the trial judge utilized this basis in reaching the final judgment, this issue was clearly set out in the pleadings and argued to the trial court. In an earlier hearing the court had determined that the driver, his employer, and the cab owner were insureds under the trailer policy.
The final judgment is therefore reversed as to Pullman, Inc. and affirmed as to Insurance Company of North America.
ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . We recognize that there is a question whether vicarious liability applies to a claim for contribution in a case where the plaintiff has dismissed all direct claims against the owner of the trailer, even if the trailer was considered a dangerous instrumentality. However, this issue was not raised by appellant.
ORDERED that the November 12, 1987 motion for rehearing, filed by Appellees, W.E. Schlechter & Sons, Inc., James Lamar Drisdom and Everglades Celery Corporation, is granted. The order of November 4, 1987, denying attorney fees is stricken. Further
ORDERED that the Appellees, W.E. Schlechter & Sons, Inc., Drisdom and Everglades Celery Corporation’s Motion for Attorney Fees, pursuant to Sec. 627.428, Florida Statutes, is granted and remanded to the trial court to determine amount of said fees.
ORDERED that Appellants’ November 19,1987 motion for rehearing of November 4, 1987 opinion is denied.
ORDERED that Appellees, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, SCHLECHTER and DRISDOM’S December 17, 1987 Motion to Strike Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cheung v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 595 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…y a load being towed behind a vehicle. It was equivalent to a trailer drawn by a tractor. A trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality. Garcia v. Mid-Florida Hauling, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The court in Pullman, Inc. v. Johnson, 543 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1989) held: We recognize that the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer may have an impact on the cause and extent of the accident. But this factor alone does not justify imposition of vicari…
-
Edwards v. ABC Transp. Co., 616 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…behind a vehicle. It was equivalent to a trailer drawn by a tractor. A trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality. Garcia v. Mid-Florida Hauling, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). [emphasis supplied]. The court in Pullman, Inc. v. Johnson, 543 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1989) held: We recognize that the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer may have an impact on the cause and extent of the accident. But this factor alone does not justify imposition of vicari…1 / 2
-
Saullo v. Douglas, 957 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…, a trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality, “and thus the employer was not subject to vicarious liability.” It drew support for this conclusion from Cheung v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 595 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Pullman, Inc. v. Johnson, 543 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1989); and Foster v. Lee, 226 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The trial court was correct in applying state law concepts to the facts of this case, and in concluding that Mr. Douglas was no…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kraemer v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1990)
- S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1920)
- Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1984)
- Foster v. LEE, 226 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Garcia v. Mid-Florida Hauling, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Powell v. Henry, 224 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Cleveland Myers, Jr. v. State, 224 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Verlingo v. State, 445 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Powell v. Henry, 231 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1970)
- U-Haul Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Glasgow & Davis Co., 445 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)