Erickson v. Irving
16 So. 3d 868, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 2009 WL 1675501 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A passenger's participation in a social outing with a driver does not constitute a joint enterprise for the purpose of imputing the driver's negligence to the passenger, absent evidence that the passenger had an equal right to control the operation of the vehicle.
Facts:
- Three friends, Robert Irving, David Long, and Joseph Sindoni, Jr., attended a scotch-tasting event.
- Irving, who had driven them to the event, decided to leave with someone else and gave his car keys to Long, asking him to return the car.
- Long asked Sindoni if he would like to drive, but Sindoni refused.
- Long and Sindoni left the event together, with Long driving.
- At Sindoni's suggestion, the two stopped at a bar for approximately forty-five minutes.
- After leaving the bar, with Long still driving, the car collided with a dump truck operated by Abelardo Pupo in the course of his employment with Community Asphalt.
- Sindoni was killed in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane Erickson, on behalf of the Estate of Joseph Sindoni, Jr., filed a wrongful death suit in a trial court against David Long, Robert Irving, Abelardo Pupo, and Community Asphalt.
- Defendants Long and Irving asserted the affirmative defense that Long and Sindoni were engaged in a joint enterprise.
- Erickson's pre-trial motions to strike the joint enterprise defense were denied by the trial court.
- A jury found the defendants negligent and also found that Long and Sindoni were engaged in a joint enterprise.
- The jury apportioned 35% of the fault to Long (the driver) and 35% comparative negligence to Sindoni (the passenger).
- Based on the joint enterprise verdict, the trial court imputed Long's 35% fault to Sindoni, making Sindoni 70% at fault, and entered final judgments reflecting this apportionment.
- Erickson, the plaintiff, appealed the final judgments to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a social outing between a driver and a passenger, where the passenger refuses to drive but suggests an interim stop, constitute a joint enterprise sufficient to impute the driver's negligence to the passenger?
Opinions:
Majority - Lagoa, J.
No. A social outing does not constitute a joint enterprise sufficient to impute a driver's negligence to a passenger because it fails to establish the required elements of a community of interest and equal authority to control the vehicle. To establish a joint enterprise, a defendant must prove: 1) an agreement to enter an undertaking, 2) a community of interest in the objects of the undertaking, and 3) equal authority to control the undertaking. The court found that a 'joy ride' or social engagement does not create the necessary community of interest, which must be akin to a partnership or agency relationship. More importantly, there was no evidence that Sindoni had any authority to control the vehicle; he was merely a 'passive passenger' who had expressly refused the opportunity to drive. The control required must practically amount to joint or common possession of the vehicle, which was not present here. Therefore, it was a reversible error for the trial court to allow the joint enterprise defense to be presented to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the joint enterprise doctrine in Florida tort law, particularly in cases involving motor vehicle accidents. By rejecting the defense in the context of a purely social outing, the court reinforces the high threshold required to impute a driver's negligence to a passenger. The ruling emphasizes that the 'equal authority to control' element is critical and requires more than simply being in the car together or making suggestions about the route. This precedent protects passive passengers from being held contributorily negligent for a driver's actions, ensuring that liability is more accurately placed on the party who actually had control over the vehicle.
