liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another.” Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So.2d 60, 62 (Fla.2000). The appellant argues that a farm tractor is a dangerous instrumentality because the legislature defines a farm tractor as a “motor vehicle” and extensively regulates their use. This argument is without merit. Although a farm tractor meets the statutory definition of a “motor vehicle,” at least three of our sister courts have held that statutory definitions of “motor vehicle” are not controlling in determining whether a device is a dangerous instrumentality. See §§ 316.003(12) & 322.01(19), Fla. Stat. (2008); Festival Fun Parks, LLC v. Gooch, 904 So.2d 542, 545-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); Edwards v. ABC Transp. Co., 616 So.2d 142,
holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle holding that a trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality notwithstanding the fact that it meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that although it does not meet the statutory definition of a motor vehicle a forklift is a dangerous instrumentality