doctrine finds its roots in the law of master and servant, and principal and agent. Canull v. Hodges, 584 So.2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). “The master who entrusts a servant with a dangerous agency ... is liable for any injury occasioned by its negligent use.” Id. The doctrine states that “the owner of an instrumentality which [has] the capability of causing death or destruction should in justice answer for misuse of this instrumentality by anyone operating it with his knowledge and consent.” Meister v. Fisher, 462 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla.1984). In Florida, the doctrine is invoked only by a judicial decision that “an instrumentality of known qualities is so peculiarly dangerous in its operation” as to justify the doctrine. Canull, 584 So.2d at 1097. In 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, farm tractors are not extensively
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 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 a trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality notwithstanding the fact that it meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle holding that although it does not meet the statutory definition of a motor vehicle a forklift is a dangerous instrumentality