LOADERS/BOBCATS ARE NOW ON THE LIST OF DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES IN FLORIDA
The "Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine" provides that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries caused by that tool's operation. In late September of 2018, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a multi-terrain loader (also known as a bobcat), is a dangerous instrumentality.[i]
FACTS
A loader/bobcat operator released a tree stump from the bucket into a dump trailer. Anthony Newton was standing inside the dump trailer, when the stump rolled onto his hand and severed his finger. Newton had been hired by C&J Bobcat and Hauling, LLC which leased the loader/bobcat from Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. Anthony Newton sued Caterpillar claiming the loader/bobcat was a "dangerous instrumentality."
LEGAL ARGUMENT
The Florida Supreme Court compared the loader/bobcat to different kinds of motorized equipment which have been determined to be “Dangerous Instrumentalities,” including a farm tractor, golf cart, construction hoist and a tow-motor.[ii] The Court further considered a variety of factors used by Florida Courts to determine the application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine: (1) whether the instrumentality is a motor vehicle, (2) whether the instrumentality is frequently operated near the public, (3) the instrumentality's peculiar dangers relative to other objects that courts have found to be dangerous instrumentalities, and (4) the extent to which the legislature has regulated the instrumentality. Finally, the Florida Supreme Court asserted that no single factor determined whether a loader/bobcat was a dangerous instrumentality.
In its opinion, the Florida Supreme Court chose to cite from the Second District Court of Appeal’s opinion “the loader is a serious piece of machinery with the capacity to do great harm.”[iii] The Court also quoted a 2012 holding by the Florida Supreme Court that “the practical fact that the owner of an instrumentality which [has] the capability of causing death or destruction should in justice answer for misuse of this instrumentality by anyone operating it with his knowledge and consent.”[iv]
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Trial Court and the Second District Court of Appeals concluded that the loader was not a dangerous instrumentality and ruled in favor of Caterpillar. The Florida Supreme Court asserted jurisdiction finding conflict between past Florida Supreme Court decisions and other districts about different kinds of motorized equipment as dangerous instrumentalities.
The first application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine by the Florida Supreme Court was in 1920 and dealt with automobiles being operated on public highways.[iii]
________________________
[i] Anthony Newton v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. et al., 43 Fla. L. Weekly S415a (Fla. September 27, 2018).
[ii] Rippy v. Shepard, 80 So.3d 305 (Fla. 2012), Meister v. Fisher, 462 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1984), Sherrill v. Corbett Cranes Services, 656 So.2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Lewis v. Sims Crane Service Inc., 498 So.2d 573 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986), and Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. Thomas, 145 So.2d 551 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962)
[iii] Newton v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp., 209 So.3d 612, 616 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2016).
[iv] Rippy citing Meister at 1072.
[v] Rippy v. Shepard, 80 So.3d 305 (Fla. 2012), quoting S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629, 631 (1920).