Title: Rippy v. Shepard

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-1677 
____________ 
 
JAMES EARL RIPPY, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
JAMES SHEPARD, 
Respondent. 
 
[January 19, 2012] 
 
LABARGA, J. 
James Earl Rippy seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of 
Appeal in Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which held that a 
farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law.  In so holding, 
the district court rejected Rippy‟s contentions that, because a farm tractor is a 
motor vehicle and because it is of such size and character as to be peculiarly 
dangerous in its operation, a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality.  The First 
District‟s opinion conflicts with our precedent set forth in Meister v. Fisher, 462 
So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 1984), where we held that the dangerous instrumentality 
doctrine can apply to motor vehicles other than automobiles that have the ability to 
 
- 2 - 
cause serious injury, and Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 86 So. 629, 636 
(Fla. 1920), where we concluded that the weight, speed, and mechanism of an 
automobile or motor vehicle make it peculiarly dangerous when in operation.  We 
have jurisdiction based on the misapplication of these decisions.  See art. V,           
§ 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; see also Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035, 1040 (Fla. 2009) 
(identifying misapplication of decisions as a basis for express and direct conflict 
jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3)).  As we will explain more fully below, 
we conclude that a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality.  Accordingly, we 
quash the decision of the First District in Rippy.  We begin our discussion with an 
overview of the facts and procedural history of this case. 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
Petitioner James Earl Rippy sued Respondent James Shepard under the 
dangerous instrumentality doctrine after sustaining injuries caused by Shepard‟s 
farm tractor on December 16, 2004.  Shepard subsequently moved to dismiss 
Rippy‟s amended complaint.  The trial court granted Shepard‟s motion and 
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, finding that a farm tractor is not 
a dangerous instrumentality under Florida law and that the complaint thus failed to 
state a cause of action against Shepard. 
On appeal, the First District also held that a farm tractor is not a dangerous 
instrumentality.  Rippy, 15 So. 3d at 923.  In so holding, the First District rejected 
 
- 3 - 
Rippy‟s contention that, because the Legislature defines a farm tractor as a “motor 
vehicle” and regulates its use, a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality.  Id. at 
922.  The district court also rejected Rippy‟s assertion that, because “it is of such 
size and character as to be peculiarly dangerous in its operation,” a farm tractor is a 
dangerous instrumentality.  Id. at 923.  Rippy now challenges the district court‟s 
ruling. 
ANALYSIS 
The parties in this case dispute whether a farm tractor is a dangerous 
instrumentality.  The issue presents a pure question of law and is thus subject to 
this Court‟s de novo review.  See D‟Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311, 314 
(Fla. 2003) (stating that pure questions of law are reviewed de novo).   
Generally speaking, Florida‟s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes 
“vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that 
motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to 
another.”  Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So. 2d 60, 62 (Fla. 2000) (citing S. Cotton Oil 
Co., 86 So. at 637).  The doctrine applies to any “instrumentality of known 
qualities [that] is so peculiarly dangerous in its operation” as to justify application 
of this common law principle.  S. Cotton Oil Co., 86 So. at 638 (on petition for 
rehearing).   
 
- 4 - 
The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is an old and well-settled rule that 
can be traced back to English common law.  Early in its development, the doctrine 
applied to objects that “common knowledge and common experience proved to be 
. . . potent sources of danger.”  Id. at 631.  We first applied the doctrine to 
automobiles in Southern Cotton Oil Co., where we noted: 
[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly 
dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public 
highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by 
the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one 
so authorized by the owner. 
Id. at 638 (on petition for rehearing).  “The liability grows out of the obligation of 
the owner to have the vehicle, that is not inherently dangerous per se but peculiarly 
dangerous in its use, properly operated when it is by his authority on the public 
highway.”  Id. at 632 (quoting Anderson v. S. Cotton Oil Co., 74 So. 975, 978 (Fla. 
1917)).   
We have previously explained the purpose and premise of the dangerous 
instrumentality doctrine as follows: 
 
The dangerous instrumentality doctrine seeks to provide greater 
financial responsibility to pay for the carnage on our roads.  It is 
premised upon the theory that the one who originates the danger by 
entrusting the automobile to another is in the best position to make 
certain that there will be adequate resources with which to pay the 
damages caused by its negligent operation. 
Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363, 1365 (Fla. 1990).  
The doctrine is based on “the practical fact that the owner of an instrumentality 
 
- 5 - 
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.”  Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1072 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jordan v. 
Kelson, 299 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)).   
 
When we first applied the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to an 
automobile in Southern Cotton Oil Co., we examined at length the dangerous 
character of the automobile as operated on the public highways.  S. Cotton Oil Co., 
86 So. at 631-33.  In his concurring opinion, which the majority adopted, Justice 
Whitfield observed: 
 
The automobile or motor vehicle is an instrumentality of 
service, whose weight, speed, and mechanism make it peculiarly 
dangerous when in operation on public highways. 
 
Among the principles of the common law, that are designed to 
conserve the public safety, are those that require the exercise of due 
care in the use on the public highways of instrumentalities that are 
peculiarly dangerous in their operation, and impose upon the owner of 
such an instrumentality liability to persons for injuries to them 
proximately caused by the negligent use of the instrumentality upon 
the public highways by any one who has the authority or permission 
of the owner to use or operate it.  These principles are applicable to 
the use of any instrumentality that may be produced by human skill, 
which materially increases the hazards of travel upon the public 
highways . . . . 
S. Cotton Oil Co., 86 So. at 636 (Whitfield, J., concurring).  Importantly, we have 
since held that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine is not limited to motor 
vehicles being operated on a public highway and may apply to a motor vehicle 
operated on private property.  See Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1073.   
 
 
- 6 - 
Subsequent to our decision in Southern Cotton Oil Co., Florida courts have 
extended the doctrine to golf carts, trucks, buses, airplanes, tow-motors, and other 
motorized vehicles.  See, e.g., Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1071 (golf carts); see also id. 
at 1072 (recognizing trucks and buses as dangerous instrumentalities); Orefice v. 
Albert, 237 So. 2d 142, 145 (Fla. 1970) (airplanes); Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. 
Thomas, 145 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (tow-motors).  We are now 
asked to consider whether the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applies to farm 
tractors.  For the reasons that follow, we hold that it does. 
A primary factor in determining whether an object is a dangerous 
instrumentality is whether the object at issue is a motor vehicle.  See, e.g., Meister, 
462 So. 2d at 1072.  Clearly, a farm tractor is a motor vehicle as it has been defined 
as such by the Legislature.  For instance, section 316.003(12), Florida Statutes 
(2004), defines a farm tractor as “[a]ny motor vehicle designed and used primarily 
as a farm implement for drawing plows, mowing machines, and other implements 
of husbandry.”  The Legislature also refers to a farm tractor as a motor vehicle in 
section 322.01(19), Florida Statutes (2004).  Additionally, the Legislature has 
enacted regulations to ensure the safe operation of farm tractors.  For instance, the 
Legislature requires farm tractors manufactured or assembled after January 1, 
1972, to be equipped with “vehicular hazard-warning lights visible from a distance 
of not less than 1,000 feet to the front and rear in normal sunlight” whenever 
 
- 7 - 
operated on a highway.  § 316.2295(1), Fla. Stat. (2004).  Such farm tractors are 
generally required to be equipped with slow-moving vehicle emblems, as well as 
lamps and reflectors that meet certain specifications.  § 316.2295(2), (5), Fla. Stat. 
(2004). 
 
The dissent expresses concern that our decision expands the dangerous 
instrumentality doctrine beyond its original intent, which was to address harm to 
the public arising from the negligent use of an instrumentality that is peculiarly 
dangerous in its operation during its primary, rather than occasional, use.  
Dissenting op. at 10-11.  The dissent is correct that no one test is determinative of 
whether an instrumentality is dangerous.  However, the contention in the dissent 
that this Court‟s ruling in Meister—that a golf cart is a dangerous 
instrumentality—“sets the bar” low, see dissenting op. at 16, and the resulting 
implication that this has become the one touchstone by which all other 
instrumentalities are measured, is incorrect.  Further, one point of significance in 
our decision in Meister is that we clearly held that the fact “[t]hat the vehicle is 
being operated on the public highways of this state is likewise not required before 
the dangerous instrumentality doctrine can come into play.”  Meister, 462 So. 2d at 
1073.  We quoted with approval in Meister from the decision of the Fourth District 
Court of Appeal in Reid v. Associated Engineering of Osceola, Inc., 295 So. 2d 
125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), where that court stated: 
 
- 8 - 
We see neither reason nor logic in the view that a motor vehicle in 
operation, which is a dangerous instrumentality while being operated 
upon the public highway, somehow ceases to be a dangerous 
instrumentality the instant the driver causes it to turn off the public 
street or highway and onto a private drive or other private property.  
Although it is most probable that a motor vehicle being operated on 
private property would be moving at a slower speed than one being 
operated upon the public street or highway, common sense tells us 
that in all other respects such vehicle while in motion is equally 
dangerous to persons and property no matter where it is operated, and 
to make the owner‟s liability for his permittee‟s negligence in the 
operation of such vehicle depend upon whether the vehicle is on or off 
the public highway simply leads to absurd results. 
 
Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1073 (quoting Reid, 295 So. 2d at 129) (emphasis added).   
This same logic leads to the inescapable conclusion that even though a 
tractor is most commonly operated on farm property, it is not solely operated in 
that context.  Tractors are also operated in road right-of-way maintenance, 
commercial landscaping, and in construction settings.  It is an instrumentality often 
seen on public highways and rights-of-way, performing these varied services.  
Moreover, it is common knowledge that tractors vary in size but are often powerful 
vehicles of such size and speed that wherever they are operated, they can be 
dangerous to those persons who come into contact with them.  Just as we said in 
Meister that “a golf cart when negligently operated on a golf course, has the same 
ability to cause serious injury as does any motor vehicle operated on a public 
highway,” Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1073, it can be said that a tractor when 
negligently operated on private property has the same ability to cause serious 
 
- 9 - 
injury as does any motor vehicle operated on a public highway.  Our decision 
today is in accord with these criteria and is not based, as the dissent suggests, 
simply on “a comparison between the device at issue and a golf cart.”  Dissenting 
op. at 16. 
Based on “common knowledge and common experience,” there is no doubt 
that a farm tractor is peculiarly dangerous in its operation so as to justify the 
imposition of vicarious liability.  See S. Cotton Oil Co., 86 So. at 631, 638.  The 
weight, speed, and mechanism of farm tractors render their negligent use peculiarly 
dangerous to others.  Furthermore, farm tractors frequently operate along state 
roads and other public areas, thereby subjecting the public to danger of injury.  Cf. 
Harding v. Allen-Laux, Inc., 559 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that 
a forklift that was often operated along the edge of a state road was a dangerous 
instrumentality under the facts of the case).  Accordingly, given their “potent 
source of danger,” there can be no question that a farm tractor is an instrumentality 
that materially increases the hazards of travel.  Id. at 631, 636.  We therefore hold 
that a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law.  
 
Based on the foregoing, we quash the decision of the First District Court of 
Appeal in Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), and remand the 
case to the First District for proceedings consistent herewith. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
- 10 - 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANADY, C.J., concurs. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
POLSTON, J., dissenting. 
 
I respectfully dissent.  The majority expands the dangerous instrumentality 
doctrine, a common law doctrine unique to Florida that was initially created to 
address the harm to the public arising from the negligent use of an instrumentality 
that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation.  See S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 86 
So. 629 (Fla. 1920) (on petition for rehearing).  But the cases decided by this Court 
and the district courts of appeal have failed to adhere to this legal standard in a way 
that may be predictably applied, and the doctrine has become arbitrary.1  
                                          
 
 
1.  Additionally, because there is no conflict between the First District‟s 
decision in Rippy and the decisions cited by the petitioner (or those cited by the 
majority), this Court does not have jurisdiction in this case.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), 
Fla. Const.  The decisions applied the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in the 
context of completely different pieces of machinery.  See Meister v. Fisher, 462 
So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1984) (holding that a golf cart is a dangerous instrumentality); S. 
Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 86 So. 629 (Fla. 1920) (holding that an automobile is 
a dangerous instrumentality); Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 
2009) (holding that a farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality); Harding v. 
Allen-Laux, Inc., 559 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that a forklift is a 
dangerous instrumentality).  The varying conclusions regarding the particular 
pieces of machinery involved in these decisions, however, contradict a common 
sense understanding of what is dangerous and demonstrate the arbitrary nature of 
the doctrine.       
 
 
- 11 - 
 
The application of the doctrine has generally been based on the danger to the 
public caused by the primary use of the instrumentality rather than by where it may 
occasionally be operated.  For instance, this Court has held that golf carts are 
dangerous instrumentalities because of their use on public golf courses, which 
thereby threaten the safety of the public on those courses.  See Meister v. Fisher, 
462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1984).  Further, an automobile has been held to be a 
dangerous instrumentality because of its use on roadways and potential harm to the 
public there.  See S. Cotton, 86 So. 629.   
In this case, based upon the doctrine‟s focus on the primary use of the 
instrumentality and the resulting danger to the public, the First District properly 
observed that farm tractors “are neither used as a mode of transportation nor 
routinely operated in public places as to pose a sufficient danger to the public.”  
Rippy v. Shepard, 15 So. 3d 921, 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).  In contrast, the 
majority erroneously finds the doctrine applicable even though farm tractors are 
primarily used on private property, not around the public, and the farm tractor in 
this case was being used on private property.   
I. 
In 1920, this Court set forth the Florida‟s dangerous instrumentality doctrine 
as follows: 
[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly 
dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public 
 
- 12 - 
highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by 
the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one 
so authorized by the owner. 
S. Cotton, 86 So. at 638.  The doctrine “seeks to provide greater financial 
responsibility to pay for the carnage on our roads” and is “premised upon the 
theory that the one who originates the danger by entrusting the [instrumentality] to 
another is in the best position to make certain that there will be adequate resources 
with which to pay the damages caused by its negligent operation.”  Kraemer v. 
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363, 1365 (Fla. 1990).  Further, once 
a device is deemed a dangerous instrumentality, it retains that legal 
characterization no matter where it is operated.  See Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1073; 
Reid v. Associated Eng‟g of Osceola, Inc., 295 So. 2d 125, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1974). 
 
It is important to note that a dangerous instrumentality is not synonymous 
with a dangerous per se item.  This Court explained the difference as follows: 
 
Wild animals and high explosives are dangerous per se; that is, 
they may inflict injury without the immediate application of human 
aid or instrumentality.  Neither a locomotive, a trolley car, nor an 
automobile is dangerous per se—by or through itself—in that neither 
can inflict injury to a person, except by its use or operation.  A 
locomotive in the roundhouse, a trolley car in the barn, an automobile 
in a garage, are almost as harmless as canary birds; but in operation 
they are dangerous instrumentalities . . . .  
S. Cotton, 86 So. at 632.   
 
- 13 - 
While dangerous instrumentalities are not dangerous per se, the dangerous 
instrumentality doctrine borrows the concept of strict liability from the common 
law dangerous per se doctrine.  See S. Cotton, 86 So. at 630-32.  Under the 
dangerous instrumentality doctrine, “[l]iability of the owner is said to be „strict‟ 
because a plaintiff need not prove that an owner negligently entrusted the vehicle 
to its operator for liability to attach.”  Burch v. Sun State Ford, Inc., 864 So. 2d 
466, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (relying on S. Cotton, 86 So. at 630-32).  But, unlike 
the common law dangerous per se doctrine, the plaintiff in a dangerous 
instrumentality action “must prove some fault, albeit on the part of the operator, 
which is then imputed to the owner under vicarious liability principles.”  Id.   
 
This concept of vicarious liability is borrowed from master-servant common 
law.  See S. Cotton, 86 So. at 632 (“The servant is empowered by the master to 
discharge certain duties, and it is incumbent upon him to exercise the same care 
and attention which the law requires of the master; and if that care and attention be 
about the management and custody of dangerous appliances, the master cannot 
shift the responsibility connected with the custody of such instruments to the 
servant to whom they have been entrusted, and escape liability therefor.”) (quoting 
Barmore v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co., 38 So. 210, 214 (Miss. 1904)).  However, 
contrary to master-servant law, the dangerous instrumentality doctrine “imputes 
liability to an owner even when the operator disobeys restrictions on the use of the 
 
- 14 - 
[instrumentality], unless the disobedience rises to the level of theft or conversion.”  
Burch, 864 So. 2d at 470 (citing Hertz Corp. v. Jackson, 617 So. 2d 1051, 1054 
(Fla. 1993); Susco Car Rental Sys. of Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832, 836 (Fla. 
1959)).   
The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is unique to the State of Florida.  See 
Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So. 2d 60, 62 (Fla. 2000) (noting that the doctrine is 
unique to Florida).  “Only the courts of Florida have gone the length of saying that 
an automobile is a „dangerous instrumentality,‟ for which the owner remains 
responsible when it is negligently driven by another.”  W. Page Keeton et al., 
Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 73, at 524 (5th ed. 1984).   
 
Significantly, the doctrine lacks any precise legal standards that courts may 
apply when determining whether an instrumentality is a dangerous instrumentality.  
See Canull v. Hodges, 584 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“The criteria 
used by the court in the two opinions in the Southern Cotton Oil cases have been 
selectively abandoned or utilized to expand the list of instruments deemed to be 
dangerous . . . .”).  Courts often consider whether the device falls within the 
statutory definitions of a motor vehicle.  See, e.g., Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1072; 
Rippy, 15 So. 3d at 922-23; Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. Thomas, 145 So. 2d 551, 552 
(Fla. 3d DCA 1962).  However, whether the item is a motor vehicle is not 
controlling.  See Edwards v. ABC Transp. Co., 616 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 
 
- 15 - 
1993) (holding that a trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality even though it meets 
the statutory definition of a motor vehicle); Harding v. Allen-Lauz, Inc. 559 So. 2d 
107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that a forklift is a dangerous instrumentality even 
though it is not statutorily a motor vehicle).  Further, courts often, but not always, 
consider the extent to which the Legislature has regulated the item.  Compare 
Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1072; S. Cotton, 86 So. at 634; Rippy, 15 So. 3d at 632; 
with Harding, 559 So. 2d at 108. 
 
In particular, courts vary tremendously in how they assess the danger the 
instrumentality at issue poses to the public, which is a key question in determining 
the applicability of the doctrine.  Courts sometimes consider the number and 
seriousness of accidents caused by the device.  See S. Cotton, 86 So. at 633 (listing 
figures for the number of deaths caused by automobiles); Meister, 462 So. 2d at 
1073 (quoting expert witness‟ statement that “the types of accidents caused by the 
operation of the carts are due to the particular design features of the carts and are 
identical to those involving other motor vehicle accidents”); Festival Fun Parks, 
LLC v. Gooch, 904 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting testimony that 
“less than 3% of all [concession go-kart] riders have „incidents‟ and that less than 
1% are injured seriously enough to require emergency room treatment”).  And in a 
nod to the dangerous per se common law roots of the doctrine, some courts analyze 
the particular characteristics of the device, such as its speed, size, and lifting 
 
- 16 - 
ability.  See Festival Fun Parks, 904 So. 2d at 543 (noting that the top speeds of 
concession go-karts range from 14 to 20 miles per hour); Canull, 584 So. 2d at 
1097-98 (noting that road graders cannot lift items or people high off the ground); 
Harding, 559 So. 2d at 108 (noting that a forklift is a large vehicle with “protruding 
steel tusks”). 
Additionally, in assessing the instrumentality‟s danger to the public, some 
courts consider whether the instrumentality is routinely operated in close proximity 
to the public.  See Meister, 462 So. 2d at 1073 (“Florida‟s tremendous tourist and 
retirement communities make golf carts and golf courses extremely prevalent in 
this state.”); Rippy, 15 So. 3d at 923 (explaining that farm tractors are not routinely 
operated in public places).  Other courts consider the location of the 
instrumentality when the injury involved in the case occurred.  See Harding, 559 
So. 2d at 108 (considering the fact that the forklift was operating on a public 
highway at the time); Eagle Stevedores, 145 So. 2d at 552 (noting that the tow-
motor caused the injury on a public street).   
Furthermore, because the Court‟s prior ruling that a golf cart is a dangerous 
instrumentality “sets the bar” so low, the decision of whether a device is a 
dangerous instrumentality can even come down to a comparison between the 
device at issue and a golf cart.  For example, the Second District in Harding, 559 
So. 2d at 108, conducted the following analysis: 
 
- 17 - 
 
If an owner of a golf cart is liable under Florida‟s dangerous 
instrumentality doctrine for the golf cart‟s operation on a golf course 
by a lessee, Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1984), surely the 
owner of this larger, four-wheel vehicle with protruding steel tusks is 
liable under this doctrine for its operation on a public highway by a 
lessee. 
In other words, does the instrumentality at issue appear to be more dangerous than 
a golf cart?   
Contrary to the majority‟s discussion of my dissent, I do not believe a golf 
cart “has become the one touchstone by which all other instrumentalities are 
measured.”  Majority op. at 7.  Instead, I believe the dangerous instrumentality 
doctrine currently lacks any precise legal standards, which makes its application 
arbitrary and which creates odd comparisons in some instances to golf carts.  As a 
result, the doctrine has lost its original meaning and purpose. 
Given the lack of a uniform set of factors courts consider when deciding 
whether to apply the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, I disagree with the 
majority‟s conclusion that the First District misapplied the doctrine in Rippy.  See 
majority op. at 2.  In fact, contrary to the majority‟s analysis, the First District 
actually considered the underlying question of the doctrine, namely whether the 
instrumentality is so peculiarly dangerous in its operation that it poses a significant 
danger to the public.  See S. Cotton, 86 So. at 638.  The First District properly 
considered this question when it explained that farm tractors are not routinely 
operated in public areas.  Rippy, 15 So. 3d at 923.  In other words, how can an 
 
- 18 - 
instrumentality be deemed a sufficient danger to the public to justify the 
application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine when the instrumentality is 
not generally operated near the public so as to pose a danger to the public?  While I 
agree with the majority that farm tractors operated on roadways present a danger to 
the public, that is not the primary use for farm tractors, as noted by the First 
District, and location of occasional use is not a determining factor.  See Meister, 
462 So. 2d at 1073; Reid, 295 So. 2d at 129.  
The majority‟s decision in this case exemplifies the problems associated 
with a limitless doctrine that lacks legal standards.  For instance, the majority 
admits that farm tractors are “most commonly operated on farm property” away 
from the public.  Majority op. at 8.  However, the majority emphasizes that farm 
tractors can occasionally be operated in closer proximity to the public when 
conducting road maintenance, landscaping, and construction activities.  Id.  
Because the majority now rules that the device at issue can be used around the 
public sometimes but not primarily, there are no limits on what can fall under the 
dangerous instrumentality doctrine in the future. 
II. 
  
In conclusion, if this Court had jurisdiction, I would approve the First 
District‟s application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in Rippy because 
the First District properly analyzed the ultimate question of whether a farm tractor 
 
- 19 - 
is peculiarly dangerous in its operation as to pose a significant danger to the public.  
With the majority‟s expansive application of the doctrine to farm tractors that are 
not primarily used around the public, and was not being used around the public in 
this case, the doctrine seems to have lost its original meaning.  What 
instrumentality would not seem more dangerous than a golf cart? 
Accordingly, the Florida Legislature may wish to address this common law 
doctrine that is unique to Florida and adopt a more predictable legal standard for 
imposing vicarious liability for the negligent operation of instrumentalities.  I 
respectfully dissent.      
CANADY, C.J., concurs. 
 
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
First District - Case No. 1D07-6626 
 
 
(Levy County) 
 
Steven L. Brannock, Celene H. Humphries, and Sarah C. Pellenbarg of Brannock 
and Humphries, Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Jennifer Cates Lester and Andrew A. Morey of Dell Graham, P.A., Gainesville, 
Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent 
 
 
- 20 - 
Sharon C. Degnan and Caryn L. Bellus of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami, Florida, 
on behalf of Florida Defense Lawyers Association, 
 
 
as Amicus Curiae