Rippy v. Shepard, 80 So. 3d 305

Rippy sued Shepard under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine after injuries from a farm tractor on December 16, 2004.
The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, holding a farm tractor is not a dangerous instrumentality.
The First District affirmed, holding farm tractors are not dangerous instrumentalities as a matter of law.
The Florida Supreme Court granted jurisdiction to resolve misapplication of precedent conflicting with Meister and Southern Cotton Oil.
This opinion holds a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality and quashes the First District's decision; remands for proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Dissent argues the doctrine lacks uniform standards and expands its scope beyond original purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a farm tractor a dangerous instrumentality as a matter of law?	Rippy contends tractors are motor vehicles and peculiarly dangerous due to size and operation.	Shepard/First District maintain tractors are not routinely dangerous and primarily used on private property.	Yes; farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality; quash and remand.

Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 86 So. 629 (Fla. 1920) (establishes doctrine's focus on instrumentality peculiarly dangerous in operation)
Meister v. Fisher, 462 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1984) (extends doctrine to non-auto instruments like golf carts; discusses use and danger on public avenues)
S. Cotton Oil Co., 86 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1920) (origin of dangerous instrumentality doctrine; weight, speed, mechanism matter)
Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2000) (recognizes doctrine as Florida-specific)
Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1990) (describes strict liability-like imposition on owner for entrusted instrumentality)
Reid v. Associated Eng’g of Osceola, Inc., 295 So.2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (supports notion that liability doesn't hinge on public highway presence)