TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Legal Newsline) – On Sept. 27, the Supreme Court of Florida stated a company’s 8,000-pound piece of equipment really is dangerous, voiding the ruling of a lower court as the ruling infringed on decisions the Court and other district courts have made in the past.
While a lower court said the loaders aren’t dangerous and granted summary judgment for defendant Caterpillar Financial Services Corp., the Supreme Court made it clear it didn’t concur.
“We find that loaders are dangerous instrumentalities and quash the district court decision below,” the Supreme Court said.
It pointed out that previous cases have ruled based on Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine that says “vicarious liability” is with the owner of the vehicle whose negligent use causes someone else harm.
Justice Peggy Quince authored the opinion.
Anthony Newton filed the lawsuit and the appeal after the trial court’s ruling in his case against Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. Newton’s issues with Caterpillar started when he was an independent contractor for C&J Bobcat and Hauling LLC. He filed the lawsuit after a piece of equipment the other contractor leased from Caterpillar allegedly played a part in severing one of Newton’s fingers. Newton said Caterpillar was liable for his injuries because the loader was dangerous. Both parties filed for motions of summary judgment as the defendant challenged if its loaders really are a danger.
The Supreme Court looked at various factors to determine the loader’s safety based on the doctrine: if it is a motor vehicle, if it’s frequently operated near the public, if its dangers are related to other items courts have found to be dangerous as well as how deep law goes in regulating the item.
The Supreme Court first determined loaders are indeed motor vehicles based on common knowledge and that they’re frequently operated in public spaces.
“Common knowledge demonstrates that a machine as powerful as a loader has the ability to cause serious injury when operated near or over a public street, just like any motor vehicle operated on a public highway,” the Supreme Court said.
It added that Newton being a contractor doesn’t mean he isn’t protected from the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. It used the idea that previous court cases haven’t excluded construction workers from the general public when they are hurt in a public place. While Newton wasn’t a member of the general public at the time of the incident, he was hurt in an incident that happened on a public street.
He and another contractor used a multi-terrain loader that the other contractor leased from Caterpillar. Newton utilized the loader to dump debris into a disposal trailer that was on the street. In the incident in question, Newton was inside the trailer when his fellow contractor released a tree stump from the loader’s container into the trailer, not hearing Newton let him know he was still in the trailer. When Newton tried to get out, the stump rolled over his hand, severing Newton’s middle finger, the ruling states.
Justice C. Alan Lawson dissented the opinion. He stated that the current court doesn’t have the proper jurisdiction to rule on the case. He also noted a number of contradictions between the cases the court relied on to come to its conclusion.
“None of the decisions the majority relies on as the grounds for jurisdiction over this case satisfy the constitutional requirements for the cited jurisdictional basis, express and direct conflict on the same question of law,” Lawson added.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady and Justice Ricky Polston concurred with the dissension.