Opinion ID: 546191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Third-Party Complaint Against Tsiotis

Text: 41 After Shirley Hiatt filed this suit against the United States, the United States filed a third-party complaint against Anderson and Tsiotis in January 1983, seeking indemnity or contribution in the event that it was found liable to Hiatt. Tsiotis filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against him, arguing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That motion remained pending until after trial. Tsiotis never filed a responsive pleading to the third-party complaint. After trial, some six years after the filing of the third-party complaint, the district court entered an order denying Tsiotis' Motion to Dismiss. On the merits, the district court held that the United States was not entitled to contribution from Tsiotis because it failed to present any evidence of Tsiotis' negligent maintenance of the aircraft, failed to brief the applicability of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, and failed to present any evidence showing the applicability of that doctrine. 42 Tsiotis admits that the district court's rationale for denying the government's contribution claim against him was to some extent in error; he admits that the United States briefed the applicability of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine before the district court. Brief of Appellee George P. Tsiotis at 5. Tsiotis argues that the district court was nonetheless correct in dismissing the United States' third-party complaint against him because: (1) the United States failed to plead the elements of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in its third-party complaint, and (2) the release executed by Shirley Hiatt bars the United States' contribution claim against him. Alternatively, Tsiotis argues that this court should remand and direct the district court to allow him to file a responsive pleading on the United States' contribution claim in which he will raise his release defense. 43 The United States argues that it did plead and prove the elements of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, and also that Tsiotis is liable for the pilot Wille's negligence under basic principles of agency law. Moreover, the United States argues that Tsiotis is precluded from asserting the release as a defense because he failed to raise it in a responsive pleading, in his Motion to Dismiss, or in any other document before the district court. The United States claims that it would be prejudiced if Tsiotis were now allowed to raise the release defense on remand. 44 We hold that the district court erred in ruling that the United States failed to allege or brief the applicability of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. As even Tsiotis admits, the United States did make its dangerous instrumentality argument to the district court in its Reply to Tsiotis' Motion to Dismiss, see Record, Vol. 1 at Doc. 32, and in its post-trial filings. See Record, Vol. 7 at Docs. 203 & 204. We also believe that the United States, while it failed to invoke the dangerous instrumentality doctrine by name in its third-party complaint, did provide adequate notice in that complaint of its intent to hold Tsiotis vicariously liable for Wille's negligence. See Record, Vol. 1 at Doc. 25, p. 4. 45 Further, the district court had before it evidence that the elements of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine are satisfied here. As explained earlier, the doctrine imputes an operator's negligence to the owner where the thing operated is a dangerous instrumentality and the operator used it with the owner's consent. The doctrine was first recognized in Florida in Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975 (Fla.1917), and was later applied to owners of aircrafts in Orefice v. Albert, 237 So.2d 142 (Fla.1970). In this case it is undisputed that Tsiotis was the owner of the Cessna 421 and that the pilot, Wille, was operating it with Tsiotis' permission. 46 Thus, we reverse the district court and hold that the United States has stated a cause of action against Tsiotis based on Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine. However, we agree with Tsiotis that he should have the opportunity to raise his defense that the release given to him by Shirley Hiatt operates to bar the United States' contribution claim against him. We reject the United States' argument that Tsiotis waived the release defense by failing to raise it in a responsive pleading. See Chilivis v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 673 F.2d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir.1982) (stating that failure to raise affirmative defense in motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment did not result in waiver because neither of those motions constitute responsive pleadings). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court to allow Tsiotis to file an answer to the United States' third-party complaint against it. The district court may allow further discovery and hear further evidence if it deems it necessary to decide whether Tsiotis' release bars the United States' claim. The district court should then enter a ruling on whether Tsiotis is liable to the United States in contribution under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.