Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the court assessed the liability of a vehicle owner under the doctrine of negligent entrustment. The appellants, including an injured driver who became paraplegic, challenged the trial court's summary judgment that favored the defendants, arguing for a trial under comparative negligence principles rather than being barred by express assumption of risk. The incident involved two individuals who drove after consuming alcohol, leading to a crash. The trial court initially favored the defense, citing express assumption of risk. However, the appellate court disagreed, noting that express assumption of risk is inapplicable in cases of intoxicated driving and negligent entrustment, where comparative negligence should instead be applied. The court also referenced Section 390 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which supports liability for entrusting a vehicle to someone likely to use it dangerously. The court distinguished this case from others involving voluntary risk, emphasizing that liability should reflect the shared negligence of both parties involved. The judgment was reversed and remanded for a comparative fault trial to adequately address the complexities of liability, specifically the decisions of both the impaired driver and the vehicle owner who permitted the conduct.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 390subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered Section 390, which imposes liability on suppliers of chattels who entrust them to individuals likely to use them dangerously, as applicable in assessing the vehicle owner's liability.
Reasoning: Appellant references section 390 of the Second Restatement of the Law of Torts, which establishes that a supplier of a chattel can be liable if they know the recipient is likely to use it in a dangerous manner.
Comparative Negligence in Tort Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the negligence of both the driver and the vehicle owner should be assessed under the principles of comparative negligence rather than barred by express assumption of risk.
Reasoning: Both parties’ negligence—Brown's decision to drive and Faris's decision to entrust the vehicle to him—must be evaluated under Florida's comparative negligence principles.
Express Assumption of Risk Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the doctrine of express assumption of risk does not apply to negligent entrustment when intoxication is involved, distinguishing it from other contexts like contact sports.
Reasoning: The court found that the defense of assumption of risk, particularly 'express' assumption of risk as recognized in Blackburn v. Dorta, does not bar the plaintiffs' action.
Negligent Entrustment Liability under Tort Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized that an adult driver can pursue a claim of negligent entrustment against a vehicle owner who permitted the driver to operate the vehicle while intoxicated.
Reasoning: The court concludes that the action against the car owner, Faris, is maintainable under negligent entrustment, as Brown, the driver, knowingly chose to drive while impaired.