The decision arose from the misuse of a Bobcat skid-steer loader the resulted in the amputation of two toes of a worker on the jobsite and subsequent lawsuits against the contractors involved and the company that supplied the rental equipment. The case illustrates the application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to rental equipment companies and application of the joint adventurer exception to that doctrine where multiple people are using the equipment.
In the wake of Hurricane Irma, a contractor rented a skid-steer front-end loader with both a bucket attachment and a grapple attachment to clear debris. The contractor subsequently hired a second contractor to use the rented equipment to clean up private property in Key Largo. The second contractor and another man went to the jobsite together in the second contractor’s truck, with the rented equipment in a trailer in the back.
During the clean up, the men used the loader with the grapple attachment to place debris in the trailer. When the trailer was full, the man would take the truck to empty the debris and bring it back. After the work was complete, the second contractor drove the loader and used the grapple attachment to pick up the bucket attachment and bring it over to the trailer. The other man waited for the loader to approach so he could remove the ramps from the bucket that were needed to drive the loader onto the trailer.
Once the load was next to the trailer, the man started removing the ramps from the bucket. The loader then unexpectedly lurched forward, the bucket attachment slid from the grapple attachment’s grip, and the bucket attachment fell onto the man’s foot, amputating two of his toes. A short time later, the man sued both contractors and the rental equipment company. His claims against the rental equipment company were (1) negligence for the rental equipment company’s alleged failure to require that the operators of the rented load be properly trained in its safe operation, and (2) vicarious liability for the second contractor’s alleged negligent operation of the load under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the rental equipment company on both counts and the man appealed. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment as it applied to the first claim for negligence against the rental equipment company. As to the second count for vicarious liability, the court reversed though, stating that issues remained that could only be resolved at trial regarding an exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine, where the owner of a motor vehicle entrusts it to another to operate, the owner has a duty to ensure that the vehicle is operated safely. There are multiple exceptions to this rule, but in this case, the court looked at the application of the “joint adventurer” exception. Under the joint adventurer exception, an owner is not liable where the vehicle is being used by the person to whom it was entrusted, and another, while both persons are both using the vehicle in furtherance of a common purpose. This requires that both people must be jointly operating and controlling the movement of the vehicle with common purpose and community of interest with equal right to control and direct the conduct of each other.
In evaluating the application of this exception, the court noted that the only evidence below demonstrated that the second contractor and the man jointly loaded and unloaded the equipment from the trailer and in cleaning up debris. Missing was evidence that the man ever had operation or control of the loader or that he had rights equal to the second contractor to control or direct the operation of the loader. Based on this, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the rental equipment company as to the vicarious liability claim.
This case highlights the risks the rental equipment companies can face, not just from the direct renters of their equipment but also from third-parties who may be injured by the use of the equipment. Rental equipment companies should be careful to encourage safe and proper usage and to consider requiring indemnification for claims that third parties could bring.