The Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine and Florida Probate Litigation

What is Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine? What should probate litigators and trust attorneys know about this doctrine? What does it have to do with Florida trust and estate litigation? A February 21, 2017 First District Court of Appeal opinion discusses this doctrine and a Milton, Florida estate.

Depriest v. Greeson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christian W. Schnitzspahn is a recent First DCA opinion. Here, an adult daughter was driving her deceased father’s car when she got into a car accident. The car was not directly left to anyone in her father’s Florida will, and the probate process for his estate had not yet started at the time of the accident. Her father’s will left everything to the daughter and his stepson as co-beneficiaries. The stepson was named as personal representative in the will but had not yet been officially appointed by the probate court. Is the stepson, as personal representative, liable for the accident that the car was in? The First DCA said no! This is because he was not yet officially appointed as personal representative  and, therefore, did not have a duty to prevent the decedent’s daughter from using the decedent’s car. In addition, because of this, the appellants could not demonstrate implied consent, an essential element of their claim under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. What is this doctrine? Click here to read the entire case and find out.