JOAO MANUEL BAPTISTA, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
ENTERPRISE LEASING CO., ETC., 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.
Baptista sued Enterprise Leasing after being injured in a motorcycle accident caused by a valet parking attendant driving an Enterprise-rented vehicle. The court affirmed summary judgment for Enterprise, holding that vehicle owners are not vicariously liable for negligence of valet parking attendants under the automobile services exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
The court held that valet parking services fall within the limited automobile services exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Once an automobile owner relinquishes control of the vehicle to a valet parking attendant, the owner is not liable for negligence committed by the attendant during the valet service.
[1] An automobile owner is generally liable for another's negligent misuse of his vehicle under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
[2] The dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not apply when the owner has relinquished control of the vehicle to an independent contractor providing automobile-related ser…
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“An automobile owner is generally liable for another's negligent misuse of his vehicle under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.”
Establishes the general rule of vicarious liability for vehicle owners
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 16, 1996, Baptista was injured in a motorcycle accident with a 1995 Nissan driven by a valet parking attendant. The Nissan was owned by Enter…
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 Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joao Manuel Baptista appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of Enterprise Leasing Company (“Enterprise”). We affirm.
On March 16, 1996, Baptista was driving his motorcycle on A-l-A when he was involved in an accident with a 1995 Nissan driven by a valet parking attendant. This Nissan was owned by Enterprise and was rented to a German tourist who had turned it over to the valet parking attendant at a Miami Beach Resort Hotel. Baptista sued and named the parking attendant, the company that employed the parking attendant, the hotel, and the owner of the vehicle (Enterprise) as defendants responsible for his damages. Enterprise moved for summary judgment based on the argument that the owner of the car could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of a valet parking attendant. The trial court ruled in favor of Enterprise.
“An automobile owner is generally liable for another’s negligent misuse of his vehicle under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.” Michalek v. Shumate, 524 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla.1988). However, that doctrine does not apply when the owner has relinquished control of the vehicle to an independent contractor, such as a valet parking serviceman who provides valet parking services for the vehicle. See Fahey v. Raftery, 353 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). “[T]he owner of a motor vehicle is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of the repairman or serviceman with whom the vehicle has been left, so long as the owner does not exercise control over the injury-causing operation of the vehicle during the servicing, service-related testing, or transport of the vehicle, and is not otherwise negligent.” Michalek, 524 So. 2d at 427. Valet parking services are included within the automobile service exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine because once the automobile owner relinquishes control for automobile-related services then “[t]he owner’s dilemma is the same regardless of the service offered.” .See id.
Once control of the vehicle was relinquished to the valet parking attendant, Enterprise was not liable for acts of negligence committed by the attendant providing these automobile-related services. Accordingly, we hold that valet parking services are included within the limited automobile services exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aircraft Logistics, Inc. v. H.E. Sutton Forwarding Co., LLC, 1 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…uishes control to an independent contractor, such as a valet parking attendant or a repair person, the owner is not liable for possible negligent misuse of the vehicle. Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1978); Baptista v. Enter. Leasing Co., 707 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Fahey v. Raftery, 353 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Such a relinquishment of control occurred here. Finding no basis to reverse the court conclusion that no duty was owed as a matter of law, the summary judgment is affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Michalek v. Shumate, 524 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1988)
- Fahey v. Raftery, 353 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)