ERROR TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT BASED ON VICARIOUSLY LIABILITY UNDER THE DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE BASED ON THE EMPLOYEE VIOLATING THE TERMS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT PROHIBITING HIM FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED
Kieffer v. Ferrera Construction, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1375 (Fla. 5th DCA June 25, 2025):
The defendant’s employee was driving a company car while intoxicated and struck the plaintiff’s car. The trial court entered final summary judgment for the company based on its argument that the employee’s driving under the influence had violated the company’s employment agreement, thereby undermining any argument for vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
The driver employee had signed documents stating that he was not to drive the company’s car under the influence of alcohol and only during work hours for business activities. However, the employee had a verbal agreement with one of his supervisors, which allowed the employee to use the company’s car to get to and from work, and for whatever else he needed to use it for.
On the day of the accident, the employee was driving the company’s car home from work when he suddenly ran out of gas. He had to pull over and called a friend help him get the car to a gas station.
After getting the gas, the employee and a friend stayed for about an hour and a half to hang out, and the employee drank several 16-ounce beers he had purchased. Thirty or forty minutes into his drive home, the employee approached a yellow traffic light and while he assumed that the car in front of him driven by the plaintiff would go through the light, it did not, whereupon the employee rear ended her.
In the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant company, the company moved for summary judgment asserting that the employee was not allowed to drive the company’s car while under the influence of alcohol. The trial court agreed with the company and concluded that the use of the vehicle on that night amounted to a theft or conversion, exempting the defendant from liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
The court reversed. It wrote that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes liability on a vehicle owner who voluntarily entrusts a motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another. Once an owner voluntarily entrusts a vehicle, the owner then has a non-delegable obligation to ensure that the vehicle is operated safely. The court drew the distinction between this case and cases where the car’s owner specifically prohibited a driver from using the car.
Because a reasonable jury could have returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor because the company’s instruction to not drink alcohol while using the vehicle did not negate the employer’s consent for him to use the company car, the court reversed summary judgment.