Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 316.1975 (2025)
Unattended motor vehicle.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
316.1975 Unattended motor vehicle.—
(1) A person driving or in charge of any motor vehicle may not permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, and removing the key. A vehicle may not be permitted to stand unattended upon any perceptible grade without stopping the engine and effectively setting the brake thereon and turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the street. A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
(2) This section does not apply to the operator of:
(a) An authorized emergency vehicle while in the performance of official duties and the vehicle is equipped with an activated antitheft device that prohibits the vehicle from being driven;
(b) A licensed delivery truck or other delivery vehicle while making deliveries;
(c) A solid waste or recovered materials collection vehicle while collecting such items; or
(d) A vehicle that is started by remote control while the ignition, transmission, and doors are locked.
(3) This section does not apply to a fully autonomous vehicle operating with the automated driving system engaged.
History.—s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; ss. 3, 148, ch. 99-248; s. 103, ch. 2002-20; s. 2, ch. 2002-23; s. 11, ch. 2014-216; s. 5, ch. 2019-101.
Note.—Former s. 316.097.
Civil Citations under F.S. 316.1975
Driver's license points · R = revocation · S = suspension§316.1975UNATTENDED VEHICLE left running/keys in ignition/wheels not turned to curb
§316.1975(1)Unattended vehicle left running/keys in ignition/wheels not turned to curb
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Eaton Const. Co. v. Edwards, 617 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Eaton Const. Co. v. Edwards, 617 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). “Eaton contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1989), was evidence of negligence because that statute was inapplicable to the facts of this case.”
Demelus v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 24 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “097 is now found in a slightly-reworded form at section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2009).”
Michael & Philip, Inc. v. Sierra, 776 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “…792, 793 (Fla.1978). In my opinion whether this theft was foreseeable was for the jury. I would affirm. NOTES [1] See § 316.1975, Fla. Stat.”
Com. Carrier Corp. v. SJG CORP., 409 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “The first theory is negligence per se, predicated on Section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides in pertinent part: "No person driving or in charge of any motor vehicle except a licensed delivery truck or other delivery vehicle while making deliveries, shall permit…”
Owen v. Wagner, 426 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “Further, when an injured party alleges facts showing that a violation of section 316.1975, Florida Statutes, has occurred, and the evidence in the record supports the allegations and the resulting injury, then a cause of action has been stated upon which the injured party may be…”
Reteneller v. Putnam, 589 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). “The more difficult question is presented by the cross-appeal against Eaton and Brown. At a hearing on the lat-ters’ post-trial motions, the trial court determined that no theory would support recovery against these defendants because of the inapplicability of section 316.”
Clark v. Merritt, 480 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). “Smith hit Haskins with his left hand, threw Haskins from the truck and drove off with the boat in tow.”
Mitchell v. Robbins, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “We reverse and hold the foreseeability of theft and any subsequent accident, following a delivery truck operator’s failure to remove keys from the ignition, presents a jury question, notwithstanding section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1981).”
Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 378 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1979). “I would hold that section 316.1975, Florida Statutes (1977), 1 is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws.”
Muhammad v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). “Muhammad fled the scene leaving his running car unattended, contrary to section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2019).”
Graham v. Stephens, 779 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “Section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: Unattended motor vehicle.”
United States v. Justin Jamaal Nettles (11th Cir. 2025). “” Fla. Stat. § 316.1975 (1). But this prohibition does not apply to “[a] vehicle that is started by remote control while the ignition, trans- mission, and doors are locked.”
— 316.1975(1) — 3 cases
Demelus v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 24 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “097 is now found in a slightly-reworded form at section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2009).”
Muhammad v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). “Muhammad fled the scene leaving his running car unattended, contrary to section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2019).”
Graham v. Stephens, 779 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “Section 316.1975(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: Unattended motor vehicle.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.