Master-Servant Relationship

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

• Lopez v. State
  273 So. 3d 1131· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-05-22 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's order that summarily denied a defendant's motion for jail credit. The appellate court found the lower court erred by not allowing the defendant an opportunity to amend his facially insufficient motion.
• Cont'l Divide Ins. Co. v. Rumba Tours, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-08
  The court held that there are disputed issues of material fact regarding the defendant's employment status, precluding summary judgment.
• Barrocas v. Directv, Inc.
  974 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-01-30
  In this negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall injury, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against Jose Barrocas, holding that merely requesting someone to bring a glass of water did not establish a legal duty of care that would support a neglig
• Dixon v. CSX Transp.
  990 F.2d 1440· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding that any alleged trial errors were harmless and did not invalidate the jury's verdict on the state law claims.
• Beddia v. Goodin
  957 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-24
  A party is not liable for the acts of another unless a master-servant or agency relationship exists, or if the party itself was negligent, which requires a duty of care that was breached.
• Jones v. Century OIL U.S.A., Inc.
  957 F.2d 84· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-21
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict because the evidence presented a jury question regarding whether the gas station operator was an independent contractor or an agent/employee of the oil company.
• Jutta I. Bolinsky v. Fritz
  544 So. 2d 259· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-05-17
  Mrs. Bolinsky appeals a judgment awarding Dr. Fritz compensatory and punitive damages for trespass when the Bolinskys' seawall extended onto his adjacent property. The court affirmed compensatory damages but reversed punitive damages, finding insufficient evidence that Mrs. Bolin
• Krueger v. Mammoth Mountain SKI Area, Inc.
  873 F.2d 222· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-24
  The court held that the existence of a master-servant relationship, for the purpose of invoking respondeat superior liability, is a question of fact for the jury when the relationship is not clearly established as a matter of law.
• Simpson v. Home Petroleum Corp. & Home Oil Corp.
  770 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-12
  The court held that the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion to prove that a worker was an employee, not an independent contractor, when seeking to establish vicarious liability under respondeat superior.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. The United States
  709 F.2d 1476· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-15
  The majority opinion erred by applying a new 'control' test for excise tax rebates instead of adhering to established 'local advertising' and 'promotional expenses' tests from prior Court of Claims precedent.
• NYE v. Alphe Seymour & S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  392 So. 2d 326· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-12-31
• Chatman v. James H. Drew Shows, Inc.
  465 F.2d 1031· 6th Cir.· 1972-09-06
  The court held that the plaintiff employee was not a servant of the employer at the time of his injury, thus the fellow servant doctrine did not bar his common-law tort claim.
• Merchs. Nat'l Bank OF Cedar Rapids v. Waters
  447 F.2d 234· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-30
  The court held that the employer's right to control the employee's actions is a crucial factor in determining vicarious liability under Iowa law.
• Mickey Lambert v. United States
  438 F.2d 1249· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-12
  The appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the defense of assumption of risk was available to the government and that the plaintiff had indeed assumed the risk of his injuries. The court also found that the government's negligence in loading the stee
• Martin v. Harleston R. Wood and William E. Boger
  400 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-12
  Corporate officers are not personally liable for employee deaths caused by corporate negligence unless they personally participated in the tortious conduct or had a specific duty to act for the safety of the decedents, which was not established here under Pennsylvania law.
• Lyon v. Reynolds
  30 Fla. Supp. 71· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-01-26
  The court holds that an automobile owner cannot be held liable for punitive damages arising solely from the grossly negligent operation of the vehicle by a driver, absent a master-servant or similar relationship. The court grants the defendant owner's motion to strike the punitiv
• Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading v. Mitzi Wypior and Herbert Liebert
  365 F.2d 164· 7th Cir.· 1966-08-11
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the definition of 'employee' were erroneous because they failed to properly instruct the jury on the contractual and compensatory elements typically required to establish an employer-employee relationship for insurance policy ex
• Ciejek v. Crane Serv. Co., Inc.
  351 F.2d 788· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-28
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the crane service company, as the company could still be held liable under respondeat superior for its operator's negligence.
• Scott v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co.
  338 F.2d 661· 5th Cir.· 1964-11-23
  The court held that the manager's actions were not within the scope of his employment, thus the doctrine of respondeat superior did not apply.
• N. Miami Beach Water Bd. v. N. Dade Septic Tank Co.
  22 Fla. Supp. 151· Dade Cty. Small Cl. Ct.· 1964-03-05
  A prime contractor is liable for the torts of its subcontractor when the prime contractor controls the subcontractor's method of performance.
• Meredith v. Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc.
  321 F.2d 107· 6th Cir.· 1963-07-31
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish agency or that the employee acted within the scope of employment when the fire occurred.
• Blanche Cooke and Arthur J. Cooke v. E. F. Drew & Co., Inc.
  319 F.2d 498· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-25
  The court held that the jury was properly instructed regarding the master-servant relationship and the requirement of express or implied authority for a servant to employ an assistant whose negligence could be imputed to the master.
• Alford v. Noonan
  259 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1958-09-16
  The dissenting judge would affirm the jury's verdict, finding that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when using the employer's car as compensation.
• Fields v. Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co., Inc.
  182 F.2d 930· 6th Cir.· 1950-06-01
• Tanksley v. Dodge
  181 F.2d 925· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-28
  A nonresident owner who causes a vehicle to be operated on Mississippi highways is subject to substituted service of process under the statute, but one who merely arranges for delivery of a vehicle he sold is not.
• Myers v. Valley Osage Oil Co.
  171 F.2d 335· 5th Cir.· 1948-12-23
  The court held that the evidence presented a jury question as to whether Barrick was an employee of Valley Osage Oil Company and acting within the scope of his employment.
• Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Spangler
  140 F.2d 917· 8th Cir.· 1944-02-25
  The court held that the employee's contributory negligence and assumption of risk were questions for the jury, not matters of law, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence and causation.
• Funk v. Hawthorne
  138 F.2d 686· 3d Cir.· 1943-11-05
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the truck driver remained the servant of the general employer (Hawthorne) rather than becoming the servant of the hirer (Buckley) at the time of the accident.
• U. S. Phosphoric Prods. Corp. v. Lester
  116 Fla. 309· Fla.· 1934-06-19
  A laborer sued his employer for injuries sustained when his hand and arm were caught between a conveyor belt and drum while cleaning accumulated material from the drum. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff's own