WILLIAM H. FRY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBINSON PRINTERS, 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.
An owner leaving a car for service is not liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for an employee's negligence causing injury to another employee.
An employee (Dewinsky) was driving the owner's (Robinson) car onto a lift at a service station when the car lurched forward, injuring another employee…
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
Appellant brought suit against the appel-lees, Robinson Printers, Inc., and Asher Dewinsky, seeking damages for injuries sustained as a result of being struck by an automobile which was owned by Robinson and operated by Dewinsky. Summary judgment was entered for Robinson and this appeal' followed.
Both the appellant, Fry, and the appel-lee, Dewinsky, were employees of Kacar Standard Station in Maitland. The automobile of Robinson had been left at the service station for minor repairs and servicing. At the time of the accident, Dewinsky was driving the automobile onto a “lift” or “grease rack” and Fry was standing at the end of the “lift,” guiding Dewinsky in placing the automobile on it. Upon signal from Fry to stop, Dewinsky says he put his foot on the brake but that it slipped off and hit the “gas pedal.” This caused the automobile to lurch forward, jump the safety barrier on the lift, and strike Fry, pinning him against some oil cans.
*646Appellant asserts that under the so-called “dangerous instrumentality doctrine” Robinson, as owner, is legally responsible for the negligence of Dewinsky in placing the automobile on the lift, but the authorities relied upon do not support the contention. Indeed, we find nothing in the decisions applying the “dangerous instrumentality doctrine” to justify a holding that where an owner leaves his automobile at a service station for repairs or servicing he is liable solely by reason of ownership for the negligent operation thereof by one employee resulting in injury to another employee of the service station, both being engaged in performing duties in connection with servicing or repairing the automobile at the time of the injury.
The appellant has failed to demonstrate error and the judgment is affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., and McNATT, JOHN M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1964)…eference to cases where the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor and sued the owner of the dangerous instrumentality or agency, or sued one for whom inherently dangerous work was being performed. In Fry v. Robinson Printers, Inc., 155 So. 2d 645 (Fla.App.2d 1963), the District Court of Appeal said: “ * * * Indeed, we find nothing in the decisions applying the ‘dangerous instrumentality doctrine’ to justify a holding that where an owner leaves his automobile at a service station for repairs…
-
Freddy R. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1966)…on. It follows that under such conditions it would not be equitable, but would create hardship, to extend or impute the doctrine of vicarious liability to a lessor. Compare such exceptions to the doctrine as appear in Fry v. Robinson Printers, Inc., 155 So. 2d 645 (Fla.App. 2d 1963), Petitte v. Welch, 167 So. 2d 20, (Fla.App.1964), and Florida Power and Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1964). Latent, though unexpressed in the opinions below, is the thought that vicarious liability founded on the doct…
-
Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1965)…wner. Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So. 2d 268 (1947). However, there are exceptions to the application of these doctrines. Some cases illustrating these exceptions are Florida Power and Light Co. v. Price, supra; Fry v. Robinson Printers, Inc., 155 So. 2d 645 (Fla.App.2d 1963), and Petite v. Welch, 167 So. 2d 20 (Fla.App. 3d 1964). These cases analogously indicate the owners in the instant case are not liable to the Respondent. Respondent was not a “third party” in the sense ordinarily contemplated in th…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence