GARY HARLESS CANULL, APPELLANT,
v.
JESSIE S. HODGES, 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.
Canull sued the lessors of a road grader involved in an accident. The court held that a road grader is not a dangerous instrumentality under Florida law and that the lessor exemption in the financial responsibility statute applies only to automobiles, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.
The court held that a road grader is not a dangerous instrumentality because, unlike cranes that lift loads and persons, road graders do not lift loads or persons and thus do not present the same risks of falling objects causing injury. Additionally, the financial responsibility exemption for long-term lessors applies only to automobiles, not road graders.
[1] A dangerous instrumentality is one that is inherently dangerous due to its peculiar function of lifting loads or persons high enough to cause injury if negligently releas…
[2] Road graders are not considered dangerous instrumentalities because they do not lift loads or persons.
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“It is common knowledge that road graders do not lift loads nor persons and it should be noted that none of the crane decisions mentions the speed or the weight of the cranes.”
Establishes the key distinction between road graders and cranes to determine that road graders are not dangerous instrumentalities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA road grader was involved in an accident causing injury or damage. The defendant lessors claimed the road grader was not a dangerous instrumentality …
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 Lessor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
It is apparent from the foregoing that the only opinions with persuasive precedential value would be those involving cranes, but it is also apparent from the following quotations from each that the cranes were considered dangerous because of their peculiar function of lifting loads or persons high enough to cause injury if negligently released:
... and while in the process of lifting one of the crates of plate glass from the gondola car the crane failed ... causing the crate to fall on James S. Poule, Jr., inflicting mortal injuries .., Geffrey, 58 So. 2d at 699.
When the boom on the crane reached the limit of its extension, making contact with the ball, the cable snapped, dropping Mann to the ground below, ... causing serious injuries, Mann, 527 So. 2d at 280.
... and from twenty-five feet up, a forty-foot section of pipe fell out of the sling. It crashed below, severely injuring Grier, ... Scott, 538 So. 2d at 78.
It is common knowledge that road graders do not lift loads nor persons and it should be noted that none of the crane decisions mentions the speed or the weight of the cranes.
We find, therefore, that there is no precedent nor evidence contrary to the judgment of the trial court that this road grader is not a dangerous instrumentality.
Leasing Service also contends that this action is barred by § 324.021(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1986), which exempts long term lessors of “motor vehicles” from financial responsibility under certain circumstances. Section 324.021(9)(b) is unavailing to the lessor of a road grader, for the section was intended to apply to lessors of automobiles. See Kraemer, 572 So. 2d at 1367 (construing section as amended); Folmar v. Young, 560 So. 2d 798, 800-801, amended on rehearing, No. 88-2571 (Fla. 4th DCA June 26, 1991).
Because of the conclusions set forth above the judgment appealed is affirmed.
JOANOS, C.J., concurs.
ZEHMER, J., dissents with written opinion.
ZEHMER, Judge
(dissenting).
I concur with the finding that Leasing Service is the owner of the road grader. However, I would classify this piece of equipment as a dangerous instrumentality and reverse the appealed summary final judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rippy v. Shepard, 80 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 2012)…rosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 73, at 524 (5th ed. 1984). Significantly, the doctrine lacks any precise legal standards that courts may apply when determining whether an instrumentality is a dangerous instrumentality. See Canull v. Hodges, 584 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“The criteria used by the court in the two opinions in the Southern Cotton Oil cases have been selectively abandoned or utilized to expand the list of instruments deemed to be dangerous .... ”). Courts often consider wheth…
-
Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…issue de novo. See Emerald Corr. Mgmt. v. Bay County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 955 So. 2d 647, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The dangerous instrumentality doctrine finds its roots in the law of master and servant, and principal and agent. Canull v. Hodges, 584 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). “The master who entrusts a servant with a dangerous agency ... is liable for any injury occasioned by its negligent use.” Id. The doctrine states that “the owner of an instrumentality which [has] the capability of causing…
-
Newton v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 209 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…”). Courts also consider whether the instrumentality at issue is operated in close proximity to the public. Compare Harding, 559 So. 2d at 108 (considering forklift involved in accident with a motor vehicle on public highway), with Canull v. Hodges, 584 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“The road grader we are asked to classify as a dangerous instrumentality was not licensed or regulated and was operating on an airport construction site and its operator was apparently a fellow employee of the plaintiff.”…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Kraemer v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1990)
- S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1920)
- Anderson v. S. Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1917)
- Geffrey v. Langston Const. Co., 58 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1952)
- Almond H. Thomas and Irene Thomas v. Atl. Assocs., Inc., 226 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1969)
- Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1984)
- Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)
- Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 538 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Folmar v. Young, 560 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. Thomas, 145 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)