One of the more unique elements of Florida injury law is the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. It essentially allows the owner of a vehicle to be held legally responsible for damages inflicted by negligent operation of that vehicle, even if it wasn’t the owner who was driving. As a Broward injury lawyer can explain, it’s an important path to compensation when a negligent driver is young, poorly insured, and/or lacking in personal assets.
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on whether a claimant could pursue claims of dangerous instrumentality against two parties – both parents of the driver, one the title holder and the other the “bailee.” The “bailee” is one who gains possession/control of property but does not actually own it. Here, the father of the negligent, 21-year-old driver was the title-holder. The mother was the bailee; she was the primary driver of the car, but both parents frequently permitted their son to drive it as well.
According to court records in Emerson v. Lambert et al., the young man was driving home from dinner when he struck a motorcyclist, who is the plaintiff in this case. The crash was catastrophic, leaving the motorcyclist a quadriplegic.
In the subsequent Florida injury lawsuit, plaintiff named the driver and his parents as defendants, the latter two allegedly vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Continue reading