Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

Adopted in 1920, Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another. See Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 468, 86 So. 629, 637 (1920). As expressed in Southern Cotton Oil:

[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one so authorized by the owner.

Over the years, the doctrine has been applied to golf carts, trucks, buses, tow-motors and other motorized vehicles. Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla: Supreme Court 1984); See, e.g., Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. Thomas, 145 So.2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Does the doctrine apply to trailers that make up the semi, tractor-trailer rigs so common to our highways? To the surprise of many, including some lawyers, the answer is No. See Saullo v. Douglas, 957 So.2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Pullman v. Johnson, 543 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Edwards v. ABC Transportation Co., 616 So.2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Continue reading "Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Law - Tractor/Trailer Rigs" »

FRCP 1.720 and most court orders require parties to appear at mediation with "full authority" to settle without further consultation. See also Carbino v. Ward, 801 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) and Physicians Protective Trust Fund v. Overman, 636 So.2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

A hypothetical personal injury case will be used here to illustrate the importance and meaning of the law:
The plaintiff's last demand before mediation was $500,000, while the defendant has valued the case at $75,000. For the defendant to be in compliance with Rule 1.720, its representative must attend mediation with the authority to settle for $500,000 (or policy limits, whichever is less). This does not mean that the defendant must accept plaintiff's demand. All it means is that the representative must have the authority to pay $500,000 without further consultation. (The rule is less clear as it relates to plaintiffs, especially when the defendant has not made a pre-mediation offer, but it is arguable that the plaintiff or its representative must be able to accept any proposal made by the defendant without further consultation.)

On its face, the rule may seem silly. However, it makes sense. The purpose of the rule is to encourage and promote the settlement of cases. The rule requires representatives to have flexibility to adjust to circumstances as they arise during mediation, even if it does not require the actual exercise of that flexibility. Without having the requisite "full authority", a representative is unable to adjust his/her position during mediation. (Examples of circumstances that sometimes motivate parties to alter their views during mediation are endless. Some of the more common examples include: the presentation of explosive eyewitness affidavits; the surprise appearance of a newly-hired heavy-hitting top-gun trial lawyer in place of an inexperienced attorney; the surfacing of key missing documents; new test results; et cetera.)

Continue reading "Florida Mediation - Meaning of "Full Authority"" »