PHILIP A. HENDELES, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
SANFORD AUTO AUCTION, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in a wrongful death case, holding that a defendant's failure to secure a vehicle (leaving keys in the ignition) may create liability for injuries caused by an unauthorized driver, as the intervening criminal act of theft does not necessarily break the chain of proximate causation when theft is foreseeable.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding ownership, possession, control, entrustment, and foreseeability of theft. The intervening criminal act of theft does not necessarily break the chain of proximate causation when theft is foreseeable, making liability questions for the jury rather than the court.
[1] The chain of causation between leaving a vehicle unattended with the key in the ignition and an injury caused by a thief is not necessarily broken by the intervening crim…
[2] Foreseeability of intervening theft and subsequent danger to others, when reasonable persons might differ, is a question for the jury.
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 chain of causation between the statutory violation, under Section 316.097, Florida Statutes (1975), of one in charge of an automobile who leaves it standing unattended, unlocked, with the key in the ignition, and the injury caused by the operation of the automobile by a thief, is not necessarily broken by the intervening criminal act of the driver in stealing the car.”
Establishes the core principle that an intervening criminal act does not necessarily break proximate causation in negligent entrustment cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarol Hendeles Brady's estate brought a wrongful death action against Sanford Auto Auction and others allegedly involved in ownership or possession of…
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 Unauthorized Use cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We granted certiorari in this case for conflict with Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1977). The estate of Carol Hendeles Brady brought an action against respondents for wrongful death caused by an automobile accident. The complaint sought damages from parties alleged to have had ownership or possession of the offending automobile, who were also alleged to have entrusted it to the driver who caused the fatal accident. Each of the respondents as parties defendant denied ownership, possession, and entrustment as to itself. Thus the question of the unauthorized use of the car, along with the circumstances surrounding it — the key was left in the ignition — was placed in issue. It appears from the record that the trial judge’s order of summary judgment for the respondents was based on his belief that the evidence showed the car to have been stolen. The district court of appeal affirmed, per curiam, without opinion.
In Vining we held that the chain of causation between the statutory violation, under Section 316.097, Florida Statutes (1975), of one in charge of an automobile who leaves it standing unattended, unlocked, with the key in the ignition, and the injury caused by the operation of the automobile by a thief, is not necessarily broken by the intervening criminal act of the driver in stealing the car. The key to proximate cause, we said, is foreseeability. The question of the foreseeability of the intervening theft under the circumstances, and of the likelihood of subsequent danger to others, when reasonable persons might differ, is for the jury.
Vining had not been decided when this case was before the trial court. But it controls now since disposition of a case on appeal should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1967).
There were disputed issues of material fact before the trial court. The factual questions either placed in issue by the pleadings or upon which evidence was adduced in the form of documents, affidavits, and depositions included, among possible others: which of the respondents had ownership, possession or control of the vehicle, or whether they had same jointly; whether the party or parties in control of the vehicle entrusted it, negligently or otherwise, to the driver; and whether it was foreseeable under the circumstances that the car might be stolen with resultant danger to others. Therefore, the trial court erred in holding that there were no disputed issues of material fact. And our Vining decision, filed since the time of the trial court’s action, compels reversal of its implicit holding that, since it appeared the' car was driven without permission, there could be no liability on the part of the person or persons having ownership or control.
The decision of the district court is quashed and it is directed that the cause be remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (54 total)
-
State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1983)…rue that disposition of a case on appeal is made in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered. Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1978); Florida East Coast Ry. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1966), this rule is not applicable when a substantive right is altered. Prior to the amendment, the right of a citizen of the State of Florida to be free from unreasonable searches and…
-
E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…tor Express, Inc. v. Smith, 372 So. 2d 116, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). But where a change in the state of the law occurs between trial and appeal, we are bound to apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal. Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1978); Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1967). Since independent proof of Eastern’s fault is now required and no such proof was adduced, the punitive damage verdict against Eastern cannot stand.3 We are quick to poi…1 / 2
-
Cantor v. Estine Davis, 489 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1986)…we feel we should consider the effect of retroactively applying section 768.56. An appellate court is generally required to apply the law in effect at the time of its decision. Von Stetina, 474 So. 2d at 787; Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1978); Rohrsen v. Waco Scaffold & Shoring Co., 355 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1978); Florida East Coast Railway v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1966). Accordingly, Young should apply to the case at bar. Such application is especially compelling because of t…
Previewing 3 of 54 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Vining v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 354 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1977)