Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

July 3, 2015 by admin

Torts — Collision between motor vehicle and motorcycle — Vicarious liability of vehicle owner — Damages — Limitation

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1559c

 
Torts — Collision between motor vehicle and motorcycle — Vicarious liability of vehicle owner — Damages — Limitation — Where permissive user of vehicle who was liable for accident had insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined property damage and bodily injury liability, owner’s liability was limited by statute to $600,000, plus applicable costs and fees — Final judgment to be amended to reflect this limitation of liability
 
JUAN RUIZ DE LOS SANTOS AND JUAN L. RUIZ PERELES, Appellants, v. DUSTIN C. BRINK, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D13-3833. Opinion filed July 2, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, J. E. Jordan, Judge. Counsel: Dorothy Difiore, of Haas Lewis Difiore, P.A., Tampa, and Ernest J. Myers, of Marcus & Myers, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. Victor Kline, of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Orlando, John H. Pelzer, of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Keith Mitnik and Alexander M. Clem, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

 

(EVANDER, J.) As a result of a collision with a motor vehicle owned by Appellant, Juan Ruiz De Los Santos (“Santos”), and operated by Appellant, Juan L. Ruiz Pereles (“Pereles”), Dustin Brink (who was riding a motorcycle) suffered serious brain injuries. His negligence action against Pereles and Santos proceeded to trial, where the jury rendered a verdict for damages in excess of $25 million. After consideration of Brink’s comparative negligence and calculation of collateral source setoffs and taxable costs, the trial court ultimately entered a final judgment against Santos and Pereles for $12,832,837.17, with language providing that Brink’s recovery against Santos was “[s]ubject to the limitations of [Santos’] responsibility pursuant to section 324.021(9)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2008).”

 

On appeal, Santos and Pereles challenge certain evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Additionally, Santos contends that, pursuant to section 324.021, the judgment against him should not have exceeded $600,000, plus applicable costs and interest. We find merit to this last argument, but otherwise affirm.

 

Section 324.021(9)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2008), provides:

The owner who is a natural person and loans a motor vehicle to any permissive user shall be liable for the operation of the vehicle or the acts of the operator in connection therewith only up to $100,000 per person and up to $300,000 per incident for bodily injury and up to $50,000 for property damage. If the permissive user of the motor vehicle is uninsured or has any insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined property damage and bodily injury liability, the owner shall be liable for up to an additional $500,000 in economic damages only arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The additional specified liability of the owner for economic damages shall be reduced by amounts actually recovered from the permissive user and from any insurance or self-insurance covering the permissive user. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the liability of the owner for his or her own negligence.
In the instant case, it was undisputed that Santos’ liability was solely vicarious and that Pereles had insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined property damage and bodily injury liability. As a result, the parties agreed that Santos’ liability was limited to $600,000, plus applicable costs and interest.

 

The final judgment should have reflected this amount. Otherwise, as Santos correctly observes, the final judgment may unfairly encumber his real property, slander his credit, and require him to further litigate this issue. On remand, the trial court shall enter an amended final judgment so as to reflect that Santos’ liability is limited to $600,000, plus applicable costs and interest.

 

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED. (EDWARDS, J. and PERKINS, T.R., Associate Judge, concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982