RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, METALLIC ENGINEERING CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JON C. BALL, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
JAMES PARTINGTON, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In this negligence and products liability case arising from a vehicle collision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's directed verdict on comparative negligence but reversed the summary judgment dismissing punitive damages claims, finding sufficient evidence that an employer could be vicariously liable for punitive damages based on allowing an intoxicated employee to operate a vehicle.
The court affirmed the directed verdict on comparative negligence, as the plaintiff-driver could not reasonably have anticipated and avoided the collision. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on punitive damages, holding that evidence of the employee's intoxication and the employer's notice of that condition created a jury question regarding vicarious liability for punitive damages, though direct liability was rejected because a job foreman is not a managing agent.
[1] A directed verdict is proper on a claim of comparative negligence when a plaintiff-driver cannot be found to have reasonably anticipated and avoided the actions of anothe…
[2] Punitive damages may be submitted to a jury when there is evidence that a driver was intoxicated when leaving the employer's place of business.
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“We find no error in the trial court's directing a verdict for Plaintiff on the charge that the plaintiff-driver was comparatively negligent in not anticipating the events so as to avoid the collision.”
The court's holding affirming the directed verdict on comparative negligence, establishing that the plaintiff could not be expected to anticipate and avoid a collision with an intoxicated driver.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn intoxicated employee of Metallic Engineering, with a blood alcohol level of .19 (more than twice the legal limit), was operating a company truck wh…
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 Managing Agent cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff and an employee of Metallic Engineering were involved in a collision on 1-95. The employee, who was intoxicated at more than twice the legal limit, hit a light post and careened across three lanes of traffic, broadsiding Plaintiffs vehicle and pushing it across the median and into the lanes of oncoming traffic.
We find no error in the trial court’s directing a verdict for Plaintiff on the charge that the plaintiff-driver was comparatively negligent in not anticipating the events so as to avoid the collision. Capitano v. CSX Transp., Inc., 698 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). As to all other issues raised by Appellants-Defendants, we also affirm.
However, on the cross-appeal, we conclude that it was error to enter a summary judgment in favor of the defense on punitive damages, and we reverse and remand for a new trial on that issue. There is evidence that earlier that day the defendant driver consumed alcohol with fellow employees including the job foreman. According to Metallic Engineering, the evidence reflects that its foreman, the driver, and a third employee drank only two beers each before the driver left to drop off the third employee at home, at which time, the driver consumed a few more beers before returning the truck to Miami. It contends that the foreman was, therefore, not on notice that the driver was intoxicated when he left the job site.
In Alexander v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), we recognized that punitive damages may be submitted to a jury on evidence that the driver was drunk when he left the employer’s place of business. Here, the evidence as to the employer’s notice of the driver’s intoxicated state is conflicting. Although the driver claims that he consumed a total of only five beers, his blood alcohol level immediately following the accident was .19. Therefore, a jury could have inferred, given the relative time frame, that he had consumed much more than the admitted two beers with the job foreman before leaving, or that the foreman’s testimony that the driver did not appear intoxicated was not credible. As a result, the jury could find that the employer was independently at fault by allowing the driver to take the truck in his condition. See Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1981). See also Carroll Air Sys., Inc. v. Greenbaum, 629 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We note that although the record supports a theory of vicarious liability for punitive damages, we reject the argument that the evidence supports one of direct liability, as a job foreman is not, as required for imposing direct liability, a managing agént of the company. Cf. Schropp v. Crown Eurocars, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1995). Compare Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Taylor v. Gunter Trucking Co., 520 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
As to all other issues raised, we affirm. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages based on vicarious liability.
PARIENTE, BARBARA J. and KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Dominguez, 295 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…e law defining a "managing agent" for purposes of direct corporate liability. However, the cases that do address this issue suggest that such an agent is more than just a manager or midlevel employee. See Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Partington, 710 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("[A] job foreman is not, as required for imposing direct liability, a managing agent of the company."); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So. 2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish,…
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Elec. Funds Transfer Corp., 326 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…ent program, who had “significant managerial power” over regional program but did not make policy decisions, was not managing agent for purpose of establishing direct corporate liability for punitive damages); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Partington, 710 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[A] job foreman is not, as required for imposing direct liability, a managing agent of the company.”); Cap. Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So. 2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding bank vice president was not managing agent of b…
-
Khuloud Halum v. ZF Passive Safety Sys. US, Inc., 360 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…ent program, who had “significant managerial power” over regional program but did not make policy decisions, was not managing agent for purpose of establishing direct corporate liability for punitive damages); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Partington, 710 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[A] job foreman is not, as required for imposing direct liability, a managing agent of the company.”); Cap. Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So. 2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding bank vice president was not managing agent of b…
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
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)
- Jasma Corp. v. Cap. Bank, 644 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Schropp v. Crown Eurocars, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995)
- Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Taylor v. Gunter Trucking Co., Inc., 520 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Carroll AIR Sys., Inc. v. Greenbaum, 629 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Capitano v. CSX Transp., Inc., 698 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)