Respondeat Superior

2,254 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Labib Ismail v. Cohen
  899 F.2d 183· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the first jury's damage award was fair and reasonable, reversing the district court's remittitur and reinstating the original verdict. It also affirmed the district court's rulings on jurisdiction and evidence.
• Alain Scofield v. City OF Hillsborough
  862 F.2d 759· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 15×
  Due process does not require pre-towing notice for vehicles unregistered for over a year, but a post-towing hearing may be constitutionally required if timely requested and denied.
• D & S Auto Parts, Inc. v. Schwartz
  838 F.2d 964· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 15×
  The court held that vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior is inconsistent with the intent of RICO, and that a corporation is liable under RICO only if it is a perpetrator of the racketeering activity, not merely an unwitting conduit for employee misconduct
• DELTA Transload, Inc. v. The Motor Vessel
  818 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 15×
• Highlander v. K.F.C. Nat'l Mgmt. Co.
  805 F.2d 644· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-18 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment for the defendant, finding the plaintiff failed to prove claims for overtime violations under the FLSA and sexual harassment under Title VII.
• Owens v. City OF Atlanta
  780 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 15×
  Individual city employees cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 for merely negligent conduct, and the City of Atlanta cannot be held liable for maintaining a policy regarding use of a “stretch” restraining procedure without evidence of fault.
• Carmie Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co.
  704 F.2d 577· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 15×
  The court held that an employer's monitoring of an employee's personal phone call beyond the initial determination of its nature violates Title III of the Wiretap Act, and that consent to monitoring can be limited.
• Fahey v. Raftery
  353 So. 2d 903· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-12-28 ·cited 15×
  An employee of a valet parking service sued the owner of a car that struck him when driven by a co-worker to its parking spot. The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not apply because the car was being operated by an employee
• Newell v. Harold Shaffer Leasing Co., Inc.
  489 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-08 ·cited 15×
  The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to create a jury question on the agency relationship between the truck driver and the defendants, and that an insurance draft was admissible to bear on issues of ownership and agency.
• Reina v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  285 So. 2d 648· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-10-30 ·cited 15×
  Plaintiff Reina sought damages from Metropolitan Dade County for an assault committed by a bus driver after Reina had already alighted from the bus and made an obscene gesture to the driver. The court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for the County, holding that the dr
• DYE v. Russel Reichard and Marjorie Reichard
  183 So. 2d 863· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-03-08 ·cited 15×
  This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict awarding damages for assault and battery. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the employer's liability for the employee's actions.
• Allen Williams b/n/f Louise J. Smyre v. United States
  352 F.2d 477· 5th Cir.· 1965-10-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the negligence of Sergeant Smith, who inadvertently took military simulators home, leading to a child's injury.
• Jeanett Brown v. Killinger
  146 So. 2d 124· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-11-08 ·cited 15×
  In this automobile negligence case, the plaintiff appealed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant-driver under Florida's Guest Statute. The court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was a guest who must prove gross negligence rather than simple negligence, rejecting the argume
• Town OF Palm Beach v. Vlahos
  153 Fla. 781· Fla.· 1943-10-22 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against the Town of Palm Beach in a wrongful death action, holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for tortious acts of its officers committed outside the scope of their authorized municipal powers. The town's fire chief use
• Scott v. City of Tampa
  62 Fla. 275· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that municipalities are not liable in damages for torts committed by their officers and agents unless the acts were committed in exercise of authority or performance of duty lawfully conferred by statute or charter. Here, the City of Tampa was not l
• Footstar Corp. v. DOE
  932 So. 2d 1272· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-07-14 ·cited 14×
  Footstar Corporation appeals a trial court order denying its motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity in a sexual battery case involving a minor. The appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's order mer
• Kauffman v. Allied Signal, Inc.
  970 F.2d 178· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer is not liable for hostile environment sexual harassment because its response was prompt and adequate, but remanded the quid pro quo claim to determine if a tangible job detriment occurred.
• Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc.
  915 F.2d 777· 1st Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII and wrongful discharge under New Hampshire law, finding that the plaintiff's termination was a result of her resistance to sexual advances, not her job performance.
• Eclophia Smith, Jr. v. Marcantonio
  910 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-06 ·cited 14×
  Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights and they did not know or should not have known their conduct violated such rights.
• Fruit v. Norris
  905 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim was improper because the inmates presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie violation, including dangers beyond toxic gases, to survive a Rule 41(b) dismissal.
• Edom Williams v. White
  897 F.2d 942· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se prisoner's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) by confusing it with a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and that the allegations stated a claim.
• Barnebey v. E.F. Hutton & Co.
  715 F. Supp. 1512· M.D. Fla.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court denied summary judgment on counterclaims, finding the indemnity clause enforceable for attorneys' fees and costs on unsuccessful claims, and that the fraud counterclaim was sufficiently pled.
• Foster v. Walsh
  864 F.2d 416· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 14×
  A court clerk issuing an arrest warrant at a judge's direction is performing a judicial function and is absolutely immune from suit. A municipal court is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Dohmen-Ramirez v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Ronald Ho
  837 F.2d 847· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) did not err in affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that Handy was acting as an agent for Dohmen-Ramirez and Wellington, making them liable for Handy's fraudulent acts under the Commodity Exchan
• Bigford v. Taylor
  834 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that officers lacked probable cause to seize the truck, reversing the dismissal of this claim against one officer. However, the court affirmed that the county and sheriff were not liable, and that the due process claim failed as no defendant was liable for the dela
• Ochoa Realty Corp. v. Faria
  815 F.2d 812· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appeal of the remand order is unreviewable, the claims for equitable relief were moot, and the damage claims were premature due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Randol Nichols v. United States
  796 F.2d 361· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion without proper notice, and that the government failed to establish that the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment.
• Bass v. Jackson
  790 F.2d 260· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed, stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a known risk of harm and that the complaint sufficiently implicated supervisory officers Waters and Spinner in this claim.
• Gilson v. Republic OF Ireland
  787 F.2d 655· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that a non-exclusive patent licensee cannot sue for infringement and that the plaintiff failed to establish trade secrets on the record before the district court.
• Ayers v. Coughlin
  780 F.2d 205· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that material issues of fact existed regarding the defendant correctional officer's deliberate indifference to known threats against the plaintiff, precluding summary judgment. Claims against supervisory officials were properly dismissed for lack of personal involv
• Sunrise Olds-Toyota, Inc. v. Monroe
  476 So. 2d 240· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-09-05 ·cited 14×
  Sunrise Olds-Toyota sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss a punitive damages claim in an amended complaint. The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that the complaint failed to adequately allege facts supporting punitiv
• Hibma v. Odegaard
  769 F.2d 1147· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence of sexual assault should have been admitted and that the foreseeability of such assault is a jury question, not a matter of law for superseding cause.
• Alday v. Patterson Truck Line, Inc.
  750 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that factual issues precluded summary judgment on the borrowed employee issue, and the denial of the motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
• Dobson v. D.R. Camden
  725 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was no joint liability between Denny's and Officer Camden for the injuries caused by excessive force, and therefore, the settlement with Denny's should not be credited against the damage verdict awarded against Camden.
• Vela v. White
  703 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings, holding that some plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested without probable cause and deprived of due process, while others were lawfully arrested or their claims failed.
• Rodriguez v. Ager
  705 F.2d 1229· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Sammons Trucking Company, as the lessee-carrier, was legally responsible for the accident due to ICC regulations requiring the lessee to assume exclusive possession and responsibility for leased equipment, even if the driver was not on a specific mission for S
• Powell v. Shopco Laurel Co. & Robert K. Skeen
  678 F.2d 504· 4th Cir.· 1982-05-18 ·cited 14×
  A private employer cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely on the basis of respondeat superior.
• Patrick v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  641 F.2d 1192· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent remedial measures was admissible to rebut claims about pre-accident conditions, and that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of crew negligence.
• Brooks v. A. R. & S. Enters., Inc.
  622 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the driver, employed by a government contractor, was not an employee of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the government did not exercise day-to-day control over the contractor's operations.
• DeJESUS v. Jefferson Stores, Inc.
  383 So. 2d 274· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-05-06 ·cited 14×
• Martin v. United Sec. Servs., Inc.
  373 So. 2d 720· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-08-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for a security company where an employee committed rape and murder off the employer's premises. The court held that the employee had stepped away from his employment duties at the time of the criminal acts, precluding vicarious liability.
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S. Concrete Pipe Co.
  369 So. 2d 451· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-04-11 ·cited 14×
  Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company appealed a trial court order requiring it to pay a portion of an $800,000 punitive damage award against its insured, U.S. Concrete Pipe Company, following a fatal accident caused by an employee. The court held that punitive damages imposed fo
• Ocean Elec. Corp. v. Sec'y OF Labor & Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  594 F.2d 396· 4th Cir.· 1979-03-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer should not be held liable for a serious violation of OSHA regulations when the accident was caused by unforeseeable human error of a supervisor, and the burden of proof for demonstrating foreseeability rests with the Secretary of Labor.
• Morrison v. Hugger
  369 So. 2d 614· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The appellate court affirmed a jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages against a bus driver and his employer for wrongful death, but vacated the punitive damages award against the employer's insurer.
• Baskin v. Parker
  588 F.2d 965· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-01 ·cited 14×
  A sheriff can be vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a deputy's actions if state law provides for such liability, and a sheriff may be personally liable for punitive damages based on his own participation in unconstitutional conduct.
• Harfred Auto Imports, Inc. v. Yaxley
  343 So. 2d 79· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-03-03 ·cited 14×
  In this appeal from a judgment holding automobile dealer Harfred liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for damages caused by a collision while an independent contractor repair shop had the car in its possession for testing, the court reversed, holding that an indepe
• Getty OIL Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & the United States Dep't of Labor
  530 F.2d 1143· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-23 ·cited 14×
  An employer is only liable for an OSHA violation if it knew or should have known of the violation through reasonable diligence; mere failure of an experienced employee to follow instructions does not automatically establish employer knowledge.
• Corene Antoinette Lyon v. Carey
  533 F.2d 649· D.C. Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 14×
  An employer may be liable for an employee's assault if it arises out of and is committed in the course of employment, even if accompanied by passion or personal revenge, and the sexual nature of the assault does not preclude recovery.
• Fuentes v. Owen
  310 So. 2d 458· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-08 ·cited 14×
  A tenant sued his landlord and the landlord's resident manager for assault and battery, wrongful eviction, and conversion after being beaten by the manager during a disputed eviction. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on an exculpatory clause in the lease, but the app
• Reid v. Associated Eng'g OF Osceola, Inc.
  295 So. 2d 125· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-05-17 ·cited 14×
  Marilyn Reid, injured when struck by a pickup truck in her front yard, appealed summary judgment against her. The court reversed, holding that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applies to motor vehicles in operation regardless of whether they are on public highways or privat