Cherokee Enterprises, Inc. v. Rogers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cherokee Enterprises, Inc. v. Rogers

451 So. 2d 553, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1984

DocketNo. 83-751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 451 So. 2d 553 (Cherokee Enterprises, Inc. v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cherokee Enterprises, Inc. v. Rogers, 451 So. 2d 553, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

This case involves the vicarious liability of the owner of a motor vehicle for damages to a third party caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle by a thief who stole it from the owner’s bailee.

Appellee Susan Rogers, the owner, delivered possession of her automobile to one George Rose, as bailee, so that he could drive it a few days to determine if he wished to buy it. Later, after drinking alcoholic beverages with a stranger, the bailee passed out and the stranger stole the bailee’s wallet and the keys to the bailed automobile from the bailee’s pants pocket and then stole the automobile and negligently operated it and collided with and damaged appellant’s trenching machine. Appellant appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of the owner and her insurance company. We affirm.

Of course, appellee, as owner, would have been vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of her automobile by her bailee, Southern Cotton Oil Company v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). Appellee, as owner, would [554]*554have also been liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of her automobile by a thief whom the owner had negligently permitted to steal her automobile such as by leaving her keys in the ignition lock, Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977), or in an open glove compartment, Schwartz v. American Home Assurance Company, 360 So.2d 383 (Fla.1978). See also Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1978). However we know of no Florida case that has held an automobile owner vicariously liable for a bailee’s negligence in failing to prevent a bailed vehicle from being stolen from the bailee as distinguished from the owner’s vicarious liability for the bailee’s negligent operation of the vehicle. Pearson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 187 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), and Commercial Carrier Corporation v. S.J.G. Corporation, 409 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1982), hold to the contrary, and we follow those cases.

AFFIRMED.

COLEMAN, T., Associate Judge, concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only, without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COWART, Judge.

This case involves the vicarious liability of the owner of a motor vehicle for damages to a third party caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle by a thief who stole it from the owner’s bailee.

Appellee Susan Rogers, the owner, delivered possession of her automobile to one George Rose, as bailee, so that he could drive it a few days to determine if he wished to buy it. Later, after drinking alcoholic beverages with a stranger, the bailee passed out and the stranger stole the bailee’s wallet and the keys to the bailed automobile from the bailee’s pants pocket and then stole the automobile and negligently operated it and collided with and damaged appellant’s trenching machine. Appellant appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of the owner and her insurance company. We affirm.

Of course, appellee, as owner, would have been vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of her automobile by her bailee, Southern Cotton Oil Company v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). Appellee, as owner, would [554]*554have also been liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of her automobile by a thief whom the owner had negligently permitted to steal her automobile such as by leaving her keys in the ignition lock, Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977), or in an open glove compartment, Schwartz v. American Home Assurance Company, 360 So.2d 383 (Fla.1978). See also Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1978). However we know of no Florida case that has held an automobile owner vicariously liable for a bailee’s negligence in failing to prevent a bailed vehicle from being stolen from the bailee as distinguished from the owner’s vicarious liability for the bailee’s negligent operation of the vehicle. Pearson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 187 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), and Commercial Carrier Corporation v. S.J.G. Corporation, 409 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1982), hold to the contrary, and we follow those cases.

AFFIRMED.

COLEMAN, T., Associate Judge, concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only, without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 So. 2d 553, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherokee-enterprises-inc-v-rogers-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack