Ward v. Morlock
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6362
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Florida residents Lia Ward (driver) and Keith Morlock (vehicle owner) were involved in an accident in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina when Paul Behrens (Morlock’s brother‑in‑law) rear‑ended Ward while driving Morlock’s car with his permission.
- Ward sued Morlock in Florida state court under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine seeking vicarious liability for the driver’s negligence.
- Morlock moved for summary judgment arguing South Carolina law governs and, under South Carolina law (including its Family Purpose Doctrine), mere ownership alone does not impose vicarious liability absent agency or negligent entrustment.
- The trial court applied South Carolina law and entered summary judgment for Morlock.
- The Florida appellate court reviewed choice‑of‑law de novo, analyzed the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (sections 145, 146, 6, 174), and considered contacts relative to the specific issue of vicarious liability.
- The court concluded Florida law (dangerous instrumentality) should apply to the vicarious‑liability issue because both parties are Florida residents, the vehicle was registered/insured in Florida, and Florida has a stronger interest in loss allocation and protecting its residents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine governs owner vicarious liability for a crash occurring in SC | Ward: Apply Florida law to hold owner liable under dangerous instrumentality | Morlock: South Carolina law governs; SC does not impose liability on mere ownership absent agency/family purpose | Court: Apply Florida law for the vicarious‑liability issue; reversed summary judgment |
| Proper choice‑of‑law test for vicarious liability | Ward: Use significant‑relationships test focused on the specific issue (vicarious liability) | Morlock: Lex loci delicti/SC contacts should control | Court: Use Restatement §§145/146/174 and §6; evaluate contacts qualitatively for the specific issue |
| Whether South Carolina’s Family Purpose/agency rules bar owner liability here | Ward: Not determinative because parties share Florida domicile and vehicle is FL‑registered/insured | Morlock: Under SC Family Purpose Doctrine and precedent, he is not liable (Behrens not family member/agent) | Court: SC interest is weak here; Family Purpose rules do not control choice of law for this issue |
| Effect of Florida statute codifying dangerous instrumentality (§324.021) (raised in concurrence) | Ward: Florida’s codification supports applying FL law and loss allocation to FL‑titled vehicles | Morlock: (not argued below) | Concurrence: Statute reinforces that FL registration/title carries attendant vicarious‑liability policy across jurisdictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Michalek v. Shumate, 524 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1988) (recognizing Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine)
- Bishop v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1980) (adopting Restatement significant‑relationships test over lex loci delicti)
- Thompson v. Michael, 438 S.E.2d 853 (S.C. 1993) (South Carolina rule that mere ownership alone does not create vicarious liability)
- Cates v. Creamer, 431 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2005) (discussing application of Restatement §174 on vicarious liability choice‑of‑law)
- Spence v. Glock, Ges.m.b.H., 227 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2000) (contacts evaluated qualitatively for choice‑of‑law)
- Dolan v. Sea Transfer Corp., 942 A.2d 29 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008) (applying vehicle‑registration state’s statute to impose vicarious liability despite tort occurring elsewhere)
- Neumeier v. Kuehner, 286 N.E.2d 454 (N.Y. 1972) (Neumeier rule: common domicile governs loss‑allocation issues like vicarious liability)