02-2854 SIERRA V. BETTERWAY RENT-A-CAR

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2003 » 02-2854 SIERRA V. BETTERWAY RENT-A-CAR

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-2854 SIERRA V. BETTERWAY RENT-A-CAR

Case Date: 11/19/2003

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003 GABRIEL D. SIERRA, a minor, ** by and through his mother and next friend, CHRISTINA DUARTE ** SIERRA and CHRISTINA DUARTE SIERRA, individually, ** Appellants, vs. ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-2854 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-17486

A BETTERWAY RENT-A-CAR, INC., ** d/b/a BUDGET RENT-A-CAR OF ATLANTA, a foreign corpora** tion, AHMAD SHIKHSAJADIEH a/k/a AHMAD SHSAJADIEH a/k/a ** AHMAD S. SAJADIEH, individually, JUAN F. LEON, JR., and ** BETTERWAY LEASING, L.L.C. d/b/a BUDGET RENT-A-CAR OF ** ATLANTA, a foreign corporation. ** Appellees. **

Opinion filed November 19, 2003. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ronald M. Friedman, Judge. Kandell & Kandell; Ralph O. Anderson, for appellants. Holland & Knight and Dominic C. MacKenzie, for appellees. Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ. SHEVIN, Judge. Gabriel D. Sierra, and his mother, Christina Duarte Sierra,

appeal an order dismissing their fourth amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants A Betterway Rent-ACar, Inc., d/b/a Budget Rent-A-Car of Atlanta ["Budget"], and A Betterway Leasing, L.L.C. ["Betterway"]. We reverse.

Gabriel was struck by a van while crossing a street on Miami Beach. The van was driven by Ahmad Shikhsajadieh. The driver At the time

rented the vehicle from Budget in Atlanta, Georgia.

of the rental, the driver informed Budget's personnel that he was going to Florida, and the rental form indicates the driver's local contact information as "FLA." Budget did not prohibit the Gabriel and his

driver from coming to Florida with the van.

mother sued Budget and Betterway1 asserting that the vehicle was negligently driven, and asserting that defendants were vicariously liable, under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, for the driver's negligence. The defendants filed a motion to

dismiss the fourth amended complaint asserting lack of personal jurisdiction. In conjunction with the dismissal motion,

defendants filed affidavits asserting that they do no business in Florida. Betterway's sole business is to lease the vehicles it Budget asserts that its sole business is renting The trial court granted the defendants' Plaintiffs appeal.

owns to Budget.

vehicles in Atlanta.

motion, and dismissed the complaint.

1 The order on appeal does not address the other defendants involved in the lawsuit.

-2-

We are not persuaded that the fourth amended complaint, and the discovery that followed, fail to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that these defendants are amenable to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Our analysis of this issue

must begin with the two-part test for long-arm jurisdiction enunciated in Venetian Salami v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989): Whether the "complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional

facts to bring the action within the ambit of the [long-arm] statute[,]" section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002); and whether defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process requirements. Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 502.

Both parts of the test are satisfied in this case. The facts in this case demonstrate that the defendants were aware that its vehicles were driven in Florida. Defendants did

not discourage or prohibit its customers from driving in Florida. Moreover, there have been three accidents involving the defendants' vehicles in Florida. In addition, Budget advertises

itself as part of a global system of rental agencies, available for worldwide rental arrangements; Betterway has not alleged ignorance of these representations. Budget knew that this

particular van was being brought into Florida and did not prohibit the driver from coming here. When Budget rented the

vehicle with no restrictions as to where it could be driven, it was reasonable to expect it could come to Florida, be involved in -3-

an accident here and be haled into court here.

See Lavender v.

Northeast Transp., Ltd., 674 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(New Hampshire car rental agency subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida when car leased for use anywhere in country collides with another vehicle in Florida). The factual scenario in this case was addressed in Stevenson v. Brosdal, 813 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In Stevenson, a

California resident loaned his car to his son and daughter-in-law to drive to Florida, where the couple resided. The daughter-inThe

law had an accident in Florida, while driving the vehicle. victim sued the California owner.

Based on these facts, the

Fourth District held that personal jurisdiction over the nonFlorida-resident defendant was proper because "consent to the operation of a vehicle in Florida constitutes sufficient contacts to support jurisdiction." 813 So. 2d at 1047. This applies

equally to the case before us.

It is disingenuous for the

defendants here to argue that they do not reasonably expect to be sued in Florida when they do nothing to discourage their clients from using defendants' vehicles in Florida, and the record shows a course of dealing in allowing the vehicles to come to Florida. Defendants argue that under AVH Daily Rental Cars, Inc. v. Smith, 640 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), out-of-state car rental agencies lack sufficient minimum contacts to be required to appear in court in Florida. While that premise is correct -4-

under the facts in AVH, it is not correct with respect to the facts in this case. In AVH, Florida residents were involved in

an accident in New Jersey while driving a vehicle rented in Delaware, that was to be returned to Delaware at the end of the rental period. These facts were insufficient to justify the However, that is

exercise of personal jurisdiction in Florida. not the circumstance in the case before us.

The defendants' were

aware that its car was brought to Florida, where it struck a Florida resident. A factor that must be considered to determine whether sufficient minimum contacts exist to justify personal jurisdiction is the foreseeability that the defendant's conduct will result in suit in the forum state. Flight Int'l Aviation

Training Ctr., Inc. v. Rivera, 651 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Certainly, the facts alleged here demonstrate the

foreseeability that defendants' vehicles would be involved in accidents in this state, resulting in lawsuits. Hence, the

exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants is proper, and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. Next, we address the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs' vicarious liability claim against the defendants is barred because Georgia law applies to this issue, and Georgia law does not have a dangerous instrumentality doctrine under which defendants would be liable for the driver's negligence. -5Contrary

to the trial court's conclusion, Florida law applies to the issue of vicarious liability in this case. Florida has adopted the significant relationship test for determining which state's law applies to a tort action. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws

Download 02-2854 SIERRA V. BETTERWAY RENT-A-CAR.pdf