DAVID RUANO, APPELLANT,
v.
WATER SPORTS OF AMERICA, INC., APPELLEE
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.
A plaintiff was injured when a jet ski rented by a commercial lessor hit him in the water. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the lessor, holding that Florida Statute § 327.54 provides a complete statutory defense to negligent entrustment claims for commercial vessel lessors who comply with safety requirements.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment because Florida Statute § 327.54 provides a complete statutory defense to negligent entrustment claims when a commercial lessor complies with the statute's safety requirements. Additionally, even absent the statute, no negligent entrustment claim can be established because negligence must exist at the time of entrustment, not afterward.
[1] A commercial lessor of a vessel is relieved from liability for accidents or injuries occurring while the vessel is in the lessee's charge, provided the lessor has complie…
[2] Statutory compliance by a commercial vessel lessor supplants common law theories of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment.
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 statute supplants the common law theories of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment.”
Establishes that the statutory defense completely replaces common law negligent entrustment claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 1988, 14-year-old Nelson Atan and his brother rented a wave jammer (jet ski) from Water Sports of America without a driver's license requireme…
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 Negligent Entrustment cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals from the entry of an adverse Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Water Sports of America, Inc. In June, 1988, Nelson Atan (age 14) and his brother rented a “wave jammer” (a jet ski that requires the operator to remain seated) from the defendant, Water Sports of America, Inc. (WSA). No driver’s license was required or requested of Atan and his brother, who were given instructions on how to operate the craft and provided with rudimentary safety precautions. Additionally, Atan was instructed to stay away from the swimming area.
The plaintiff was sitting in the water, approximately five to eight feet from shore, in that part of Biscayne Bay that is adjacent to the Rickenbacker Causeway. Ruano was within the established swimming area when the “wave jammer”, owned by WSA, hit him in the head, knocked him out for a few seconds, lacerated his ear and caused other injuries to his body.
The plaintiff filed an action against WSA, alleging that WSA had negligently entrusted the “wave jammer” to Atan. WSA moved for Summary Judgment on the grounds that section 327.54, Florida Stat utes (1987),1 operates as a complete defense and that the facts do not. support a claim of negligent entrustment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and this appeal ensued.
The trial court properly entered Summary Judgment because section 327.-54, Florida Statutes (1987), provides a complete defense, thus relieving the defendant from liability. The statute provides that the liability of a commercial lessor ceases upon compliance with the statutory safety requirements. The statute supplants the common law theories of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment. Moreover, even if the statute does not constitute a defense for negligent entrustment, there is no view of the facts which supports such a claim. For a claim of negligent entrustment to properly lie, the defendant must be negligent (i.e., he knew or should have known) at the time of the initial entrustment, not after the fact. See Mullins v. Harrell, 490 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Thus, there was no negligent en-trustment as a matter of law. The Summary Judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Section 327.54, Florida Statutes (1987) reads in part as follows: "(4) When the livery has complied with subsections (1) and (2), its liability ceases and a person leasing the vessel from the livery is liable for any violations of this chapter and is personally liable for any accident or injury occurring while in charge of such vessel.” No contention is made that the lessor did not comply with subsections (1) and (2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Briggs v. Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina, 9 So. 3d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ny person” under certain conditions. A cause of action under section 327.54 is considered independent from a negligence cause of action. See Meyers v. Scoot-a-Way Corp., 662 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also Ruano v. Water Sports of Am., Inc., 578 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that the statute “supplants the common law theories of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment”). The plaintiffs cause of action under the statute does not fall within the ambit of admiralty jurisdiction becaus…
-
Depriest v. Greeson, 213 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…t’s order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Cantalupo v. Lewis, 47 So. 3d 896, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (applying de novo review to affirm summary judgment for defendant in negligent entrustment case); Ruano v. Water Sports of Am., Inc., 578 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (affirming summary judgment where there was no negligent entrustment as a matter of law). In this case the material facts are undisputed, leaving only their legal effect in question, which we review de novo. Cantalupo, 47 So.…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 596 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…not supported by competent substantial evidence. The term “jet ski” is often used as a generic term for all personal watercraft despite the fact that it is a registered trademark of Kawasaki. For example, in Ruano v. Water Sports of America, Inc., 578 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the court described a “wave jammer” (which is manufactured by Yamaha) as a “jet ski that requires the operator to remain seated.” (Emphasis added). Although the trial court concluded that State Farm should have “kept up” with the…
Authorities Cited
- Mullins v. Wilna Harrell, 490 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)