[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14132 ____________________

RICARDO SANCHEZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Teresa Sanchez Quetglas, ELIA BONFANTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ana Gaitan Diaz, FRANCISCO CORTES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margarita Cortes-Pardo, JULIO LOPEZ-BERMEJO ROSSELLO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Maria Lopez-Bermejo Rossello, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus USCA11 Case: 21-14132 Document: 69-1 Date Filed: 10/25/2023 Page: 2 of 34

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14132

DISCOUNT ROCK & SAND, INC., a Florida Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant,

CARLOS MANSO BLANCO, individually,

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cv-10097-KMM ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and MARCUS, Cir- cuit Judges. LUCK, Circuit Judge: This case stems from a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of four young women. The women’s estates sued Carlos Manso Blanco, the driver who rear-ended their car, for negligence. And the estates sued Blanco’s employer, Discount Rock & Sand, Inc., for negligently entrusting the company’s truck to Blanco and for vicarious liability for Blanco’s negligent driving. After the USCA11 Case: 21-14132 Document: 69-1 Date Filed: 10/25/2023 Page: 3 of 34

21-14132 Opinion of the Court 3

estates and Blanco settled, the district court ordered the estates to file a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 41(a), which they did. Based on the stipulation, the district court ordered the dismissal of the claim against Blanco. The re- maining claims against Discount Rock went to trial, and the jury found the company liable and awarded nearly $12 million in dam- ages to the estates. Discount Rock appeals the judgment, arguing that: (1) it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the negligent entrust- ment claim; (2) the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could presume a rear-ending driver was negligent; and (3) the dis- trict court abused its discretion by allowing the estates to show the jury a demonstrative aid depicting the crash. After we issued a ju- risdictional question, Discount Rock also moved to dismiss the ap- peal. Discount Rock argues that the stipulation was ineffective to dismiss the claim against Blanco because rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) re- quires all parties who appeared in the action to sign the stipulation, but Discount Rock didn’t sign it. Thus, the company argues, the claim against Blanco was not dismissed and the district court’s judgment was not final. We first conclude that we have jurisdiction. Although the stipulation did not comply with rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the district court’s order dismissing the claim against Blanco satisfied rule 41(a)(2)—which allows a