That
dangerous instrumentality of a motor vehicle was finally taken off the roadways of America by the trial lawyers after General Motors and our government could no longer ignore the crash data or the wrath of juries who told them to "get the damned Corvair off the road!!!" The Roundup litigation is yet another example of why so many politicians on the right hate trial lawyers and use "tort reform" to artificially limit the ability of capitalistic trial lawyers to take on Corporate America and take on our own government and hold them all accountable to "We the People."
parent from liability under the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine.
Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine is followed in Florida.
under the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, damages for vicarious
accompanying text regarding Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine.
If a big corporation knowingly produces and sells a substance or machine that it knows to be terrifyingly dangerous, and it knows that it can only be sued for $100,000, it goes on selling the
dangerous instrumentality, paying the $100,000 as part of the cost of doing business.
The only true exception arises when a parent negligently entrusts a
dangerous instrumentality to a child.
This article explores Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine, vicarious liability, and federal preemption of the regulation of commercial motor vehicles.
Vicarious liability for the negligence of a professional driver is determined by Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine, which provides that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries caused by that tool's operation.(1) In the seminal case of Southern Cotton Oil Co.
In the absence of common law or statutory authority, we hold that a parent who owns neither legal title nor an identifiable property interest in a motor vehicle should not be held vicariously liable for his or her child's negligent operation of the vehicle under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.(4)
Appellate Judge Anthony Kline wrote, "Fundamental fairness requires that those who create and profit from commerce in a potentially
dangerous instrumentality should be liable for conduct that unreasonably increases the risk of injury above and beyond that necessarily presented by their enterprise....
Spencer (36 N.Y.2d 35 (1974)), which established the proposition that a parent cannot be sued for negligent supervision of a child except where the parent violates a duty of care "owed to the world at large" or entrusts a "
dangerous instrumentality" to a child.
