Appellate court seeks instruction from Supreme Court as to whether an estranged husband who intentionally directed that title be issued in his name as co-owner may avoid liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Following a fatal collision, the appellant's personal representative filed an action against a drunk driver and appellee, the deceased-driver's estranged husband. The driver and the husband separated in 1999. In 2003, after the conclusion of the court proceedings for the dissolution of their marriage, but before the final judgment was entered, the husband attempted to reconcile with the driver. At that time, the husband purchased the car that the driver was operating at the time of the collision at issue. The husband submitted numerous documents identifying himself as co-owner and co-purchaser. The husband testified that he only saw the car twice after the purchase.
At issue was whether the estranged husband and co-owner can be exposed to liability under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The Florida Financial Responsibility Law imposes limited statutory liability on "owners" who permit the use of their vehicles. The law states that the owner, who is a natural person and loans a motor vehicle to any permissive user, shall be liable for the operation of the vehicle or the acts of the operator in connection therewith only up to $100,000 per person and up to $300,000 per incident for bodily injury and up to $50,000 for property damage.
The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's order that denied the appellant personal representative's motion for directed verdict. It remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment against the drunk driver's husband in accordance with the damage verdict. Further, the court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court as to whether a person who intentionally directs that title be issued in his name as co-owner, by completing a sworn application for title in conjunction with the purchase of a vehicle, avoid liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine by claiming that he never intended to be the owner of the vehicle and further claiming that he relinquished control to a co-owner of the vehicle.
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012