A Dispute Over Vicarious Liability
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1848a
Torts – Automobile Accident – Vicarious Liability – Loaner Vehicle and Statutory Immunity
5th District Court of Appeal, September 5, 2024
Case No. 5D2023-2309
Judge: Howard M. Maltz
Background
DRJ Atlantic, LLC, operating under the name Hyundai of Jacksonville, is at the center of this legal dispute involving a car accident. The dealership loaned a temporary vehicle to Cheryl Yeschenko while her own car was being repaired. While driving this loaner vehicle, Yeschenko was involved in an accident with Amir Babadi, who subsequently filed a lawsuit against Yeschenko, DRJ Atlantic, and others for the injuries he claimed were caused by the accident.
Babadi’s lawsuit against DRJ Atlantic hinges on Florida’s dangerousinstrumentalitydoctrine, which generally holds the owner of a vehicle liable for any harm caused when the vehicle is loaned to another person. Babadi argued that because DRJ Atlantic owned the loaner vehicle and entrusted it to Yeschenko, they were vicariously liable for the damages he sustained.
However, DRJ Atlantic countered this claim by seeking immunityfromliability under section324.021(9)(c)3.a., Florida Statutes. This statute offers protection to car dealerships when they loan out vehicles to customers for service, provided certain conditions are met. The dealership filed a motion for summaryjudgment to avoid liability under this statutory immunity, but the trial court denied the motion.
DRJ Atlantic then sought to appeal this denial.
Legal Issue: Jurisdiction and Appeal
Before addressing the substance of DRJ Atlantic’s appeal, the 5th District Court of Appeal needed to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the case. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, only certain types of non-final orders, such as those concerning immunity claims, are subject to immediate appeal. DRJ Atlantic argued that their case should be reviewed, drawing parallels to other forms of immunity that allow for interlocutory (non-final) appeals.
However, the court found that Rule9.130 does not list the specific statutoryimmunity DRJ Atlantic claimed under section 324.021(9)(c)3.a. as one that can be immediately appealed. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the non-final order denying DRJ Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment based on statutory immunity. As a result, the court dismissed DRJ Atlantic’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Certiorari Request Denied
As an alternative, DRJ Atlantic asked the court to treat its appeal as a petitionforwritofcertiorari. A certiorari writ is a type of legal remedy used to correct significant legal errors when no other remedy is available. However, to grant certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court’s order resulted in irreparableharm that cannot be corrected on appeal after the case concludes.
In this instance, the court found that DRJ Atlantic had not shown irreparable harm. While continued litigation and its associated costs may be inconvenient, this did not meet the threshold for irreparable harm. Importantly, the court emphasized that DRJ Atlantic was claiming immunityfromliability (i.e., protection from paying damages), not immunityfromsuit (i.e., protection from being sued at all). Under Florida law, immunityfromliability is not considered to cause irreparable harm, as any error in the denial of immunity can be corrected on appeal after the final judgment.
Since DRJ Atlantic’s claim of statutory immunity only provided a defense against liability, not a complete protection from being involved in the lawsuit, the court ruled that certiorari was not available in this case.
The 5th District Court of Appeal dismissed DRJ Atlantic’s appeal and denied its petition for a writ of certiorari. The dealership’s argument for statutory immunity from liability under section324.021(9)(c)3.a. could not be reviewed at this stage, and DRJ Atlantic would have to continue defending the lawsuit brought by Babadi. Any potential errors in the denial of immunity could be addressed on appeal following the final judgment in the case.
Thought of the Day:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
— William E. Gladstone