With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the doctrine was extended to include automobiles. See S. Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). In doing so, the court reasoned: The principles of common law do not permit the owner of an instrumentality that is not dangerous per se, but is peculiarly dangerous in its operation, to authorize another to use such instrumentality on the public highways without imposing upon such owner liability for negligent use. The liability grows out of the obligation of the owner to have the vehicle, that is not inherently dangerous per se, but peculiarly dangerous in its use, properly operated when it is by his authority on the public highway. Anderson v. S. Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975, 978 (1917). Therefore, the doctrine “imposes strict vicariou (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>); Harding v. Allen-Laux, Inc., 559 So.2d 107,

A: holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling
B: holding that a collision with the loading ramp of a trailer was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
C: holding that although it does not meet the statutory definition of a motor vehicle a forklift is a dangerous instrumentality
D: holding that a trailer is not a dangerous instrumentality notwithstanding the fact that it meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle
D.