Master-Servant Relationship

141 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Jenkins v. Peddie
  145 So. 2d 729· Fla.· 1962-10-17 ·cited 10×
  Alma Jenkins, widow of a taxicab driver killed in the course of employment, sought workers' compensation benefits from both the taxicab stand franchisee (Peddie) and the individual cab owner (Goodson) who directly employed her deceased husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed
• S. Pac. Co. v. Libbey
  199 F.2d 341· 9th Cir.· 1952-10-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentations on his employment application, which was prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial.
• Harris v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  178 F.2d 8· 10th Cir.· 1949-11-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the undisputed facts did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant, precluding liability for the plaintiff's injuries.
• Talbert v. Sims
  143 F.2d 958· 4th Cir.· 1944-06-23 ·cited 10×
  A suspension order against a dealer in rationed commodities is validly based on the conduct of an employee, even if the dealer lacked knowledge of the violations, under a master-servant relationship.
• Price v. Westmoreland
  727 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 9×
  Under federal regulations governing interstate motor carriers, the carrier is vicariously liable as a matter of law for the negligence of a driver operating a leased vehicle, regardless of state agency law or whether the driver exceeded actual authority.
• Watson v. Watson
  121 Fla. 173· Fla.· 1935-10-09 ·cited 9×
  W. J. Watson sued his brother H. O. Watson for injuries sustained when an automobile suddenly accelerated while Watson was pushing it. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the defendant was not negligent in operatin
• Warrington v. Elgin
  901 F.2d 88· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he was an employee of the railroad for FELA purposes or that the railroad breached its duty of care under state law.
• Sonnenborn v. Blanche Murray Gartrell
  179 So. 2d 385· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-10-19 ·cited 8×
  A domestic worker sued her employers for injuries sustained when she fell from a defective kitchen stool, claiming unsafe working conditions. The trial court struck the assumption of risk defense and submitted the case to a jury on negligence and contributory negligence, resultin
• Gullett v. Best Shell Homes
  312 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the law of Mississippi was properly applied, affirming the dismissal of the appellant's claim.
• Santa Rosa Island Auth. v. F. Rust Smith & Sons, Inc.
  303 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that substantial compliance with notice requirements was sufficient, and the bridge tender's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, warranting full damages.
• Dean v. Rouillier
  597 So. 2d 961· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-05-01 ·cited 6×
  Sheriff Dean appealed a directed verdict in favor of Florida Power Corporation in a negligence action arising from a traffic accident. The court affirmed, holding that an auxiliary deputy sheriff directing traffic was exercising a nondelegable police power that could not be deleg
• Norwest Cap. Mgmt. & Tr. Co. v. United States
  828 F.2d 1330· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding that Kasen was not negligent was clearly erroneous, and that both Shields and Kasen were grossly negligent. The court also found that the district court's findings on proximate cause were mistaken and lacked evidentiary support.
• Eusebio Guerrero Guillen v. Kuykendall
  470 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the father could be liable under respondeat superior and that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury instruction on exemplary damages.
• Watland v. Walton
  410 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1969-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Watland was Superwood's servant, and the jury instruction regarding the parent-subsidiary relationship was proper.
• Hughes v. Deckard
  267 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not, as a matter of law, a borrowed servant of the defendant, and therefore the Louisiana Compensation Act was not necessarily the exclusive remedy.
• Knight v. Cameron Joyce & Co.
  252 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1958-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a master-servant relationship, thus the directed verdicts for the defendants were proper.
• Boettger v. The Babcock & Wilcox Co.
  242 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to establish either an actual or statutory employer-employee relationship, making summary judgment premature.
• Long v. Valley Steel Prods. Co.
  207 F.2d 505· 10th Cir.· 1953-10-21 ·cited 6×
  An independent contractor is not entitled to benefits under the Texas or Missouri Workmen's Compensation Acts, and therefore, such acts do not bar a suit for damages.
• N.Y. Cas. Co. v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n
  119 F.2d 387· 8th Cir.· 1941-04-17 ·cited 6×
• Atlas Dredging Co. v. Mitchell
  74 Fla. 307· Fla.· 1917-11-15 ·cited 6×
  Mitchell's mother sued Atlas Dredging Company for death of her son, a diver who drowned while wearing a defective diving suit the company provided. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict, holding that Mitchell's failure to observe patent defects in the suit before us
• Newcomb v. N. E. Ins. Co.
  721 F.2d 1016· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because the determination of whether the gravel hauler was an employee or an independent contractor presented a mixed question of law and fact, requiring jury resolution.
• Moreno v. Stahmann Farms, Inc.
  693 F.2d 106· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 4×
  An employer has a non-delegable duty to provide a reasonably safe dwelling for resident employees, and making fencing materials available does not satisfy this duty if a fence is necessary for safety.
• Maldonado v. Jack M. Berry Grove Corp.
  322 So. 2d 608· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the landowner was not liable for injuries to a child of a contract fruit picker because the landowner did not exercise sufficient control to establish a master-servant relationship and the work was not inherently dangerous.
• Bergeron v. Elliot
  466 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-15 ·cited 4×
  A wharf owner is not liable for injuries caused by a vessel moored at its wharf unless the owner had knowledge of a specific hazard created by the vessel and failed to act.
• Frazier v. United States
  412 F.2d 22· 6th Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding the employee's travel was within the scope of employment.
• Hewitt v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  404 F.2d 1247· D.C. Cir.· 1968-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the landowner may be liable for injuries from an obvious danger if the landowner should have reasonably anticipated the harm, and the invitee had no feasible alternative but to encounter the risk.
• King v. Grimm
  300 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1962-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the loaned servant doctrine and the burden of proof concerning the driver's employment status.
• Kaplan Trucking Co. v. Lavine
  253 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1958-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury should have been properly instructed on the issue of whether the driver was acting within the scope of his employment, and the prior instructions were inadequate.
• Poole v. Clagett
  196 F.2d 775· D.C. Cir.· 1952-05-01 ·cited 4×
• Myles v. Philadelphia Transp. Co. (two cases)
  189 F.2d 1014· 3d Cir.· 1951-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the owner-driver's contributory negligence is not automatically imputed to a passenger, but the owner's actions, such as dozing, can create a jury question regarding the relinquishment of control.
• Dennis v. Mabee
  139 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1943-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff had no common law right of action against the Mabees because their workers' compensation statute provided the exclusive remedy for employee injuries.
• Carnival Corp. v. Darce Carlisle
  953 So. 2d 461· Fla.· 2007-02-15 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question of great public importance by holding that a cruise line is not vicariously liable under respondeat superior for the medical malpractice of its shipboard physician. The court rejected the Third District's reliance on Nietes
• Little v. Littlefield
  311 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1962-12-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the driver was not the owner's agent was warranted by the evidence, resolving the issue of imputed negligence.
• Dykes v. Simkins
  143 Fla. 625· Fla.· 1940-07-05 ·cited 3×
  This case reviews a final judgment for the defendant after a jury verdict. The plaintiff, a dressmaker employed by the defendant, sued for injuries sustained when she fell on a rug in the defendant's home. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the plaintiff was not acting with
• Carmen and Jose Sanchez v. Braun & MAY Realty, Inc.
  795 So. 2d 1006· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-08-22 ·cited 2×
  Homebuyers appealed a judgment in their negligence action against a real estate agent and broker arising from the purchase of a house with undisclosed structural defects. The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees but reversed and remanded the damage apportionment, holding
• Garcy v. Broward Process Servers, Inc.
  583 So. 2d 714· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-03 ·cited 2×
• Bengston v. Jorge Giroud, M.D.
  559 So. 2d 380· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The Bengstons appealed the dismissal of their negligence complaint against Dr. Giroud, a physician who ordered the plaintiff employee to move heavy equipment despite knowing of his back condition. The appellate court reversed, holding that the doctor's request for assistance crea
• Taylor v. KAY Lease Serv., Inc.
  761 F.2d 1107· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Kay Lease employees were loaned servants of Rebel, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy for the injured employee.
• Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Reiser
  391 So. 2d 706· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-12-11 ·cited 2×
  Vigilant Insurance Company and Child Guidance Clinic appeal a judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages awarded to a psychiatric patient who was negligently treated by Dr. Reginald Berry during a period when he was employed by the clinic an
• Selman v. Califano
  619 F.2d 881· 10th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pilot was an employee for social security purposes, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to remand for additional evidence.
• Kushner v. Raley Legette
  330 F.2d 447· 4th Cir.· 1964-04-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the relationship between Canal Wood Corporation and Fullwood was that of an independent contractor, not employer-employee, and remanded for consideration of punitive damages against the negligent parties.
• Meister v. The United States
  319 F.2d 875· Ct. Cl.· 1963-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The statute does not compensate reservists for injuries sustained before reporting for inactive duty training.
• Schumaker v. King
  141 So. 2d 807· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-06-06 ·cited 2×
  Eleanor May King, an employee at defendant Julia Schumaker's tavern, slipped on a wet ramp while performing her job duties after having complained to her employer about the hazard. The court upheld a jury verdict for King and her husband, recognizing the 'doctrine of notice and p
• Ellis v. Dannen Grain & Milling Co., Inc.
  275 F.2d 352· 7th Cir.· 1960-03-03 ·cited 2×
  There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Powell, an employee of Shreeves, was loaned to the defendant to make the trip for repair parts, thus becoming the defendant's servant for that purpose.
• Bowyer & Johnson Constr. Co. v. White
  255 F.2d 482· 5th Cir.· 1958-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contractor was not liable for the subcontractor's negligence in starting a fire that destroyed a church, as the subcontracting was not prohibited and the work was not inherently dangerous. The subcontractor, however, was liable.
• Bassett v. NEW York
  235 F.2d 900· 3d Cir.· 1956-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant railroad was negligent for failing to warn its employee of known track obstructions, and affirmed the judgment. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal regarding his subsequent termination.
• Faye Broadwater v. Coleman
  224 F.2d 186· 10th Cir.· 1955-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the deceased court reporter was a guest in the defendant judge's car under Kansas law, barring recovery for ordinary negligence.
• Sante de Michiel v. Gen. Crushed Stone Co. & Veterans Quarry & Supply Co., Inc.
  218 F.2d 186· 3d Cir.· 1954-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a truck owner/operator who was not an employee or agent of the stone supplier, but rather an independent contractor, could be held liable for negligence, while the supplier was not liable under respondeat superior. The court also held that the injured party wa
• Albany INS. Co. v. Holberg
  166 F.2d 311· 8th Cir.· 1948-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction regarding the defendant Nelson's employment status prejudiced the plaintiffs' case against him, requiring a new trial. However, the judgment in favor of defendant Holberg was affirmed.
• Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  162 F.2d 310· 8th Cir.· 1947-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plant guards, even when militarized or deputized, retain their status as employees under the National Labor Relations Act and that their affiliation with a union representing other plant workers, in a separate bargaining unit, does not violate public policy.