SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS HARRISON DUNN, JR., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND NEXT FRIENDS, THOMAS HARRISON DUNN AND SARAH BOWERS, AND THOMAS HARRISON DUNN AND SARAH BOWERS, INDIVIDUALLY, ABDALLAH ALI SHIHRY, HAZZA SAUD AL-FAQEER, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation appealed a trial court's order establishing personal jurisdiction under Florida's long arm statute based on allegations that its employee negligently operated a vehicle in Jacksonville. The court affirmed, holding that the complaint's allegations of tortious conduct within Florida were sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, and that factual disputes about whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment are for the jury to resolve.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to abate. The court held that the amended complaint's allegations that Al-Faqeer was an employee acting within the scope of employment were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the long arm statute. The court noted that the ultimate question of whether Al-Faqeer was acting within the scope of employment is a factual issue for the jury to determine, not a matter for judicial determination on a motion to abate.
[1] A plaintiff's allegations in an amended complaint are sufficient to charge a defendant with legal responsibility for an employee's wrongful act if the employee was acting…
[2] A defendant's motion to abate for lack of personal service, supported by an employee's deposition, fails to make a prima facie showing that the employee was not acting wi…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The allegations of the amended complaint were clearly sufficient to charge Appellant with legal responsibility for its alleged employee's wrongful act while acting within the course and scope of his employment.”
Establishes that the pleading sufficiently invoked long arm jurisdiction based on allegations of tortious conduct by an employee within the state
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHazza Saud Al-Faqeer, allegedly an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Jacksonville, Florida, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Course And Scope Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a nonfinal order by which the lower court determined that it had personal jurisdiction over Appellant by virtue of the “long arm statute,” Section 48.193(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).1 The plaintiffs below alleged in their original complaint that one Hazza Saud Al-Faqeer negligently operated a motor vehicle on the public streets of Jacksonville, Florida, causing injury to the plaintiffs. Upon discovery of facts which led them to believe that Al-Faqeer was, at the time of the accident, an employee of Appellant and acting within the course and scope of such employment, plaintiffs amended their complaint by adding Appellant as a defendant and by adding allegations to the effect that Al-Faqeer was an employee of Appellant and at the time of the accident was acting within the course and scope of such employment. Thereafter, personal service of process was served upon Appellant under the above-cited statute.
Appellant filed a motion to abate, relying upon a previously-taken deposition of Al-Faqeer to show that while he was, indeed, an employee of Appellant, his sole purpose in being in Jacksonville at the time was to attend the University of North Florida to learn the English language and acquire American culture, and that the accident occurred at a time when he was driving a borrowed car back to the University after a personal shopping mission for the purchase of food.
The allegations of the amended complaint were clearly sufficient to charge Appellant with legal responsibility for its alleged employee’s wrongful act while acting within the course and scope of his employment. Elmex Corporation v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan Association, 325 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
The Appellant’s motion to abate for the lack of personal service, supported as it was by Al-Faqeer’s deposition, failed to make a prima facie showing that Al-Faqeer was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Electro Engineering Products Co. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1977), reh. denied. There are many factual issues involved, as well as conflicting reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, concerning that issue. - “It is well-settled that the question of whether a tort committed by an agent is within, the scope of his employment is normally to be determined by the jury, except in those cases in which a jury could reach only one conclusion that could be sustained.” Turberville v. Concrete Construction Company, 270 So. 2d 431, at 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); see also, Lay v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); 53 Am.Jur.2d, Master and Servant, § 460.
We decide here only that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to abate for lack of personal service under the long arm statute. We caution that such is a threshold determination only, and is not intended by us to be taken as dispositive of the ultimate issue of Appellant’s liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The trier of fact will ultimately determine that issue. Paradoxically, the ultimate determination of that issue will, at the same time, finally settle the question of personal jurisdiction over the person of Appellant.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . Section 48.193(1), Florida Statutes:
“Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits that person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following:
“(b) Commits a tortious act within this state.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ed to make a prima facie showing that Al-Faqeer was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident” and accordingly affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to abate. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 395 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).1 [*119] Subsequently Al-Faqeer was terminated from Saudi because he was unreliable and was returned to Saudi Arabia. At the trial, over Saudi’s objection, Dunn was permitted to read excerpts of Al-Faqeer’s deposition to t…1 / 2
-
Schwartz v. Zippy Mart, Inc., 470 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…de that the acts ... were committed by an agent of the corporation within the scope of his employment, questions of agency and scope of employment are to be resolved by a jury.” Id. at 1046. (e.s.) Accord, Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation v. Dunn, 395 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In applying the above rules to the facts of this case, it is clear that the work of the participants brought them together and created the relations and conditions which later resulted in the assaults. The close proximity…
-
Alsay-Pippin Corp. v. Lumert, 400 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…that Peterson was not in the scope of his employer’s business. The conflicting evidence in this case created a jury question as to whether Peterson was in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 395 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). By its special verdict, the jury specifically decided that question adversely to Alsay and the facts Peterson testified to were sufficient to support that verdict. We have carefully considered the court’s instructions to the ju…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Elmex Corp. v. Atl. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fort Lauderdale, 325 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Electro Eng'g Prods. Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1977)
- Donesta S. LAY and Larry R. Lay v. Roux Labs., Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Tuberville v. Concrete Constr. Co., 270 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)