Plaintiff alleges she sustained injuries and damages following an incident that occurred when she was run over by an ATV owned by East Coast Sport Rentals (“ECSR”) and operated by its employee while she was sunbathing on a public beach near the Courtyard by Marriott in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. She sued Marriott and asserted claims for Count I – negligence, Count II – gross negligence, Count III – strict liability, and Count IV – joint enterprise liability.
Marriott moved for summary judgment because Plaintiff could not establish the requisite elements to prove her claims because the undisputed facts showed that (1) Marriott and ECSR were two, independent businesses, in which Marriott had no control or authority over ECSR’s business, ECSR’s operations, or ECSR’s employees; (2) the ATV that ran over Plaintiff was owned, maintained, and operated solely by ECSR; (3) Marriott never employed or directed the actions of ECSR’s employees; and (4) Marriott owed Plaintiff no duty of care. The trial court granted Marriott’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered final judgment for Marriott. Plaintiff appealed.
The appellate court agreed with Marriott’s analysis on appeal and affirmed the summary judgment finding. The facts demonstrated that the critical elements of a joint venture were absent. There was no joint control because each party retained full authority over its operations and employees and had no authority to bind the other party. Neither Marriott nor ECSR contributed capital or combined resources for a joint proprietary interest. And Marriott or ECSR did not share in the profits. That the parties may have mutually profited from the rental agreement, but in their own way, is not a “sharing” in profits. Any potential losses or liabilities were distinct and not shared. Further, Marriott and ECSR contractually agreed they would remain independent business entities and were not joint venturers; no joint venture was thus created.
Summary judgment is proper where it is established as a matter of law that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care. Whether there is a duty of care poses a question of law that the court must answer before permitting a negligence claim to proceed before the trier of fact. Here, the evidence demonstrates Marriott did not create the risk. And, as the trial court correctly determined, there was no special relationship between Marriott and Plaintiff (who was not a guest of the Hotel), and the relationship between Marriott and ECSR did not go beyond that of renting a storage facility to ECSR for it to conduct its own business. Generally, in Florida one does not have a duty to control the actions of a third party. Plaintiff offered no evidence that takes this case outside of that general rule. Marriott had no duty to control the actions of ECSR or its employee regarding operation of the ATV at the time of the incident.
Finally, the evidence conclusively proves there was no agency agreement or relationship involving Marriott and ECSR that would support vicarious liability under any theory. The summary judgment evidence overwhelmingly establishes ECSR did not have the right to act as an agent of Marriott. Most notably, the evidence confirms that Marriott exerted no control over the means and details of ECSR’s business.
The appeal was handled by Michael Dono.