BARBARA GOMEZ, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., 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.
The Gomez children appealed the dismissal of derivative damages claims against the owners of a rental car involved in an accident that injured their mother. The court reversed, holding that Florida Statute 768.0415 permits minor children to recover derivative damages against both the negligent driver and the vehicle owners under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Section 768.0415 provides minor children with a cause of action for derivative damages against both the driver, as the active tortfeasor, and the vehicle owners, whose potential liability arises under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The statute should be construed harmoniously with the established common law dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
[1] A statute providing for derivative damages to a dependent child whose parent suffers permanent total disability due to another's negligence applies to both the active tor…
[2] The dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle for the negligent operation of that vehicle by another.
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“A person who, through negligence, causes significant permanent injury to the natural or adoptive parent of an unmarried dependent resulting in permanent total disability shall be liable to the dependent for damages, including damages for permanent loss of services, comfort, companionship, and society.”
The statutory language of Section 768.0415 establishing the children's right to recover derivative damages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaroline Gomez was injured in an automobile accident caused by Patricia Rubio, who was driving a van owned by Avis Rent-A-Car and P.V. Holding. Caroli…
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 Derivative Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Barbara and Jacqueline Gomez appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice two counts of their complaint. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Barbara and Jacqueline Gomez are the minor children of Caroline Gomez who was injured in an automobile accident by a van driven by Patricia Rubio and owned by Avis Rent-A-Car and P.V. Holding. The injured mother sued all three parties, alleging that the driver was negligent and that the owners were vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The complaint included two counts that sought derivative damages for the minor children, based on section 768.0415, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 768.0415 provides that A person who, through negligence, causes significant permanent injury to the natural or adoptive parent of an unmarried dependent resulting in permanent total disability shall be liable to the dependent for damages, including dam ages for permanent loss of services, comfort, companionship, and society.
The defendants moved to dismiss the children’s claims on the ground that Florida common law does not recognize derivative claims by children of injured, living parents. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss as to the driver but granted the motion as to Avis and P.V. Holding.
The trial court erred when it dismissed the children’s claims and limited the statute’s application to the active tortfeasor. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes all liability for the operation of a vehicle on the owner of that vehicle.
The principles of the common law do not permit the owner of an instrumentality that is ... peculiarly dangerous in its operation, to authorize another to use such instrumentality on the public highways without imposing upon such owner liability for negligent use. The liability grows out of the obligation of the owner to have the vehicle ... properly operated when it is by his authority on the public highway.
Susco Car Rental Sys. of Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832, 836 (Fla.1959) (citations omitted). The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is premised upon the theory that the owner of the vehicle who “originates the danger by entrusting the automobile to another” is best placed to ensure that there will be “adequate resources with which to pay the damages caused by its negligent operation.” Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363, 1365 (Fla.1990).
By dismissing the children’s claims against the car’s owners, the trial court in effect abrogated the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and allowed the owners to escape liability for a portion of the damages caused by the driver to whom they had entrusted the car. “The general rule is that statutes are to be construed with reference to appropriate principles of the common law, and when possible, they should be so construed as to make them harmonize with existing law and not conflict with long settled principles.” Vanner v. Goldshein, 216 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Accordingly, we hold that section 768.-0415 provides the minor children with a cause of action for derivative damages against both the driver, who is alleged to be the active tortfeasor, and the owners, whose potential liability arises under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SUN Chevrolet, Inc. v. Crespo, 613 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…xample an automobile, who entrusts its use to another is liable for the negligence of the person to whom the instrumentality is entrusted. Susco Car Rental Sys. of Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832, 836 (Fla.1959); Gomez v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 596 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see also 4 Fla.Jur.2d Automobiles and Other Vehicles § 227 (1978). Thus, the owner of an automobile who allows his vehicle to be driven on the open road is liable only if the driver is negligent. Caetano v. Bridges, 502 So.…
-
Pavolini v. Eugenio F. Bird, M.D., 769 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…permanent injury to the child’s natural parent. The courts often refer to a claim brought under this statute as a derivative claim for loss of consortium. See U.S. v. Dempsey, 635 So. 2d 961 (Fla.1994); see also Gomez v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 596 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Therefore, for ease of discussion, we refer to both the husband’s claim and the minor child’s claim as a claim for loss of consortium. . The provisions of this statute are now contained in section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1999…
-
Hicks v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2023)…t the Court should dismiss both counts because the claims are derivative in nature, and where a plaintiff’s direct-liability claims fail, the derivative claims fail as well. BRP Mot. at 16; KBP Mot at 14 (citing Gomez v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 596 So. 2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). Defendants do not otherwise attack the sufficiency of these two claims. Since the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs’ direct-liability claims, Defendants present no reason to dismiss the derivative claims. Therefore, Defe…
Authorities Cited
- Kraemer v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1990)
- Miller v. Miller, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Vanner v. Goldshein, 216 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)