Rinker v. Turnipseed (533 So. 2d 289, 1988)

OVERTON, Justice.

These petitions to review Jackson v. Turnipseed, 512 So.2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), are based on the same certified question we recently answered in Horne v. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc., 533 So.2d 261 (Fla. 1988). We approve the decision below on the authority of our decision in Home.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

KOGAN, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BARKETT, J., concurs.

KOGAN, Justice,

dissenting.

As in Home v. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet Inc., 533 So.2d 261 (Fla.1988), I fully disagree with the rejection of the section 390 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. While the facts in this case may not be as compelling as in Horne, I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to allow the jury to decide the issue of Turnipseed’s knowledge of Rinker’s inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Accordingly, I would quash the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal and remand this case to the trial court with directions to vacate the summary judgment against Jackson, allowing a jury to determine the issue of whether Turnipseed negligently entrusted Rinker with an automobile.

BARKETT, J., concurs.