In an affirmative defense to Brown’s complaint, National alleged that because the car was rented in Georgia, National’s vicarious liability as owner of the car was governed by Georgia law, which provides no equivalent to our dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Brown moved to strike the defense and alleged that Florida law applied. On the above stated, agreed-upon facts, the court ruled that Georgia law applied to the issue of vicarious liability and National could not be held vicariously liable for Fanfair’s negligent driving. Because there are no disputed facts, and this case involves solely an application of the law, we are in as good a position as the trial judge to decide how to apply the law to the instant factual scenario. See Mansell v. State, 609 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that under the Significant
holding that as to the correction of an erroneous application of law a nondeferential standard of review applies holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to  3bllc determinations holding that courts of appeals should review the facts necessary to determine whether an exemption to the flsa applies in a particular under the clearly erroneous standard holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence alone holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard