Robert L. Christensen v. Mary Jo Bowen
140 So. 3d 498, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 214, 2014 WL 1408557 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person whose name is on a vehicle's certificate of title as a co-owner is considered a beneficial owner with the right to control the vehicle and cannot avoid vicarious liability under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine by claiming a lack of intent to own or control, or by relinquishing physical control to another co-owner.
Facts:
- On April 29, 2003, Robert Christensen paid the purchase price for a Chrysler PT Cruiser.
- The certificate of title was issued in the names of both Robert Christensen and Mary Taylor-Christensen as co-owners, identified as 'Mary G. Taylor-Christensen or Robert L. Christensen', and both signed the application for title under penalty of perjury.
- Robert Christensen did not receive the certificate of title (it was mailed to his wife’s address), did not have a key to the vehicle, did not use it, and did not reside with Mary Taylor-Christensen or have access to her garage where the vehicle was kept.
- Approximately twenty-two months after the vehicle's purchase, Mary Taylor-Christensen negligently struck and killed Thomas Bowen while driving the vehicle.
- At the time of the accident, the title remained in the names of both Mary Taylor-Christensen and Robert Christensen, and the vehicle was being operated with his consent (as his name was still on the title).
- Robert Christensen testified during trial that his intent was to purchase the vehicle as a gift for his wife and that he had no involvement with the vehicle after it was purchased.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Jo Bowen, as executor of Thomas Bowen's estate, filed an action for wrongful death against both Mary Taylor-Christensen and Robert Christensen in the trial court (court of first instance).
- Bowen moved for a directed verdict on the issue of Robert Christensen's ownership, which the trial court denied.
- The jury subsequently found that Robert Christensen was not an owner of the vehicle.
- Bowen appealed the denial of the motion for directed verdict to the Fifth District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal, on rehearing, reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that Robert Christensen was liable.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida (highest court), and Robert Christensen petitioned for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a person whose name is on the certificate of title of a vehicle as co-owner avoid vicarious liability under an exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine by asserting that he never intended to be the owner of the vehicle and further claiming that he relinquished control to a co-owner of the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No, a person whose name is on the certificate of title as co-owner cannot avoid vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine's beneficial ownership exception by claiming lack of intent or relinquishment of control. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability on those with an identifiable property ownership interest in a vehicle, intended to ensure financial recourse for victims of negligent operation. The beneficial ownership exception is narrow, applying only where a titleholder truly lacks beneficial ownership, such as in conditional sales agreements or a complete transfer of possession where bare legal title remains. A joint titleholder, by virtue of having their name on the title, holds a joint tenancy interest, which confers legal rights to possess, use, encumber, or sell the vehicle, and a right of survivorship. These legal rights exist independently of whether they are actually exercised. The subjective intent of a titleholder, or their non-use/lack of physical access to the vehicle, is irrelevant to beneficial ownership because the individual knowingly entered into joint title ownership by signing the application under penalty of perjury. To avoid vicarious liability, a titleholder must objectively divest themselves of their ownership interest. Florida's statutory scheme defines 'owner' primarily as the titleholder, and allowing subjective intent to negate title ownership would destabilize the law and make determining ownership for liability purposes inefficient and inconsistent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the strict nature of Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine, clarifying that mere subjective intent or non-use of a vehicle is insufficient to escape vicarious liability for a titleholder. It emphasizes that legal rights associated with vehicle title, rather than actual physical control or a titleholder's personal intentions, are paramount in determining 'beneficial ownership.' The ruling solidifies the importance of objective evidence, such as a formal transfer of interest, for titleholders to divest themselves of liability, thereby ensuring a clear mechanism for identifying responsible parties and promoting public safety by holding those with legal control accountable.
