## Facts

- Three friends—Robert L. Irving, David Long, and Joseph A. Sindoni, Jr.—attended a scotch-tasting event.
- Irving drove them to the event, but later decided to leave with someone else.
- Before leaving, Irving gave his car keys to Long, who agreed to return the car to Irving’s home.
- Long asked Sindoni whether Sindoni wanted to drive; Sindoni refused, and Long drove.
- Long originally intended to drop Sindoni at home and then take the car to Irving’s home, but at Sindoni’s suggestion they stopped at another bar for about 45 minutes.
- After leaving the bar, Long continued driving with Sindoni as a passenger.
- The car collided with a dump truck operated by Abelardo Pupo, who was acting within the scope of his employment with Community Asphalt.
- Sindoni was killed in the crash; Long later pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter.
- Diane Erickson, as personal representative of Sindoni’s estate, sued Long, Irving, Pupo, and Community Asphalt for wrongful death.
- Long and Irving raised affirmative defenses including comparative negligence and joint enterprise, asserting that Long and Sindoni shared control of the vehicle.
- The trial court denied Erickson’s request to strike the joint-enterprise defense and instructed the jury on joint enterprise.
- The jury apportioned fault: Pupo 5%, Community Asphalt 5%, Irving 20%, Long 35%, and Sindoni 35%.
- Relying on the joint-enterprise finding, the trial court imputed Long’s negligence to Sindoni and entered judgments that resulted in no recovery against Long and sharply reduced recoveries against the other defendants.
- Erickson appealed; Pupo and Community Asphalt cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to consider a joint-enterprise defense between Long (driver) and Sindoni (passenger), so that Long’s negligence could be imputed to Sindoni.
2. Whether the trial court’s submission of joint enterprise and resulting imputation of negligence required reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the trial court erred by allowing the joint-enterprise defense to be presented to the jury because the evidence did not establish the required elements, especially an equal right of control over the vehicle.
- Because a new trial was required on the joint-enterprise error, the court did not address the remaining issues raised in the appeal and cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Joint enterprise is an imputed-negligence doctrine that applies only when the evidence supports its elements, including a shared objective and an equal right to control the vehicle’s operation.
- In an automobile case, a passenger’s participation in a social outing, agreement on destinations, or suggestions about stops does not by itself show an equal right to control driving.
- A joint-enterprise instruction should not be given unless the record contains evidence from which a jury could find the passenger had a legal right to share control of the vehicle’s operation.
- Giving an unsupported joint-enterprise instruction is reversible error when it affects fault allocation and the judgment, including by allowing the driver’s negligence to be charged to the passenger.

## Conclusion

Because the record showed a social evening in which Irving turned the keys over to Long and Long retained driving control—while Sindoni rode as a passenger and merely suggested a stop—the evidence did not support joint enterprise, the joint-enterprise instruction was erroneous and harmful, and the Third District reversed the final judgments and sent the case back for a new trial.


Erickson v. Irving, 16 So.3d 868 (2009)