JOHN LANGILL, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES COLUMBIA AND THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Plaintiff was shot and injured by a security guard employed by Wackenhut Corporation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wackenhut, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of fact regarding whether Wackenhut negligently entrusted a firearm to an inadequately trained employee.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine factual issues existed regarding negligent entrustment. The owner of a dangerous instrumentality like a firearm may be liable for negligence in entrusting it, and a jury could find Wackenhut negligent based on the employee's age, lack of experience, and lack of proper instruction.
[1] An owner of a firearm may be liable for injuries caused by the firearm if there was negligence in its entrustment to another.
[2] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of fact exist regarding negligent entrustment of a firearm.
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“the owner of a firearm, a dangerous instrumentality, may be found liable for injury if there was negligence in the entrustment of the firearm”
Establishes the legal doctrine that firearms owners can be held liable for negligent entrustment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWackenhut Corporation employed James Columbia as a bank security guard and issued him a pistol with five rounds of ammunition. Columbia was approximat…
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
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Wackenhut Corporation.
Defendant James Columbia was employed by the defendant Wackenhut Corporation as a bank security guard. On May 4, 1971 Wackenhut issued to Columbia a pistol and five rounds of live ammunition to be used by him the following day on his job. The next morning, defendant Columbia while dressing for work partially loaded the weapon. Plaintiff1 and another man drove up to defendant’s trailer, his place of residence, to discuss some work to be done thereon. Columbia came outside and joined them and during the course of the discussion without provocation or reason, he pointed the pistol at plaintiff and the other man and pulled the trigger discharging a bullet which passed through and killed the other man and lodged in plaintiff’s side. Plaintiff filed suit against Columbia and Wackenhut Corporation to recover damages for the injuries sustained as a result of the shooting. Wackenhut filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court, which continued the cause against Columbia at the request of plaintiff pending the outcome of this appeal.
We find merit in plaintiff-appellant’s contention on appeal that the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment in favor of Wackenhut Corporation where there existed genuine issues of fact as to whether or not Wackenhut negligently entrusted one of its weapons to its employee Columbia.
This court has held that the owner of a firearm, a dangerous instrumentality, may be found liable for injury if there was negligence in the entrustment of the firearm. See Brien v. 18925 Collins Ave. Corp., Fla.App. 1970, 233 So. 2d 847; Acosta v. Daughtry, Fla.App.1972, 268 So. 2d 416.
After reviewing the record in a light most favorable to plaintiff-appellant, the party against whom the summary judgment was entered, we found the following facts to which defendant Columbia testified in his deposition. Defendant Columbia was approximately seventy (70) years of age when hired by defendant Wackenhut Corporation ; he was given no special or personal physical instruction in the use and loading of firearms; he had little or no experience in firing a weapon; and the defendant Wackenhut Corporation along with the pistol and live ammunition merely issued to Columbia a guard • manual which contained some information as to the proper handling of a weapon. A jury, having had the opportunity to consider the above facts, may have determined that the defendant Wackenhut Corporation was negligent in entrusting the pistol with five rounds of live ammunition to the defendant Columbia. Thus, we find it was error for the trial court to have entered summary final judgment in favor of Wackenhut.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to hold a jury trial on the issue of negligent entrustment.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. Plaintiff was employed as maintenance man in the trailer park.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horn v. I. B. I. Sec. Serv. OF Fla., Inc., 317 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…y instruction erroneous and causes us to reverse. For the owner of a firearm to be liable for injury negligently caused by the person to whom he has entrusted a gun, he need only be negligent in the en-trustment of that firearm. Langill v. Columbia, 289 So. 2d 460 (3d DCA Fla.1974); see also Acosta v. Daughtry, 268 So. 2d 416 (3d DCA Fla.1972); Brien v. 18925 Colline Ave. Corp., 233 So. 2d 847 (3d DCA Fla.1970). In Langill v. Columbia, supra, the court held there should not have been a summary final judgment…
-
Foster v. Arthur, 519 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ed on two prior occasions). We consider the duty of a gun owner to avoid entrusting his gun to a person known to be violent and dangerous to be somewhat analogous to that of an employer to avoid hiring such a person. In Langill v. [*1095] Columbia, 289 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), the court concluded that whether negligent entrustment was established by evidence that the person to whom a firearm was entrusted lacked the training and experience necessary to use it presented a question for the jury. Evidenc…
-
Harley Jordan v. Lawson Lamar, 510 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…d Casualty Co., 505 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Mercier v. Meade, 384 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Horn v. IBI Security Service of Florida, Inc., 317 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1976); Langill v. Columbia, 289 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Acosta v. Daughtry, 268 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 277 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1973); Seabrook v. Taylor, 199 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. denied, 204 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1967). Appellant argues that the instructi…
Authorities Cited
- Brien v. 18925 Collins Ave. Corp., 233 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Acosta v. Daughtry, 268 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- City OF Fort Walton Beach v. S. States Steel Corp., 268 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)