Respondeat Superior

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

• Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. BD.
  637 F. Supp. 2d 1002· M.D. Fla.· 2007-09-06 ·cited 3×
  The court found that Plaintiff had standing to challenge specific permitting provisions of the Ordinance for lack of circumscribed time and limitless discretion, but not other constitutional claims.
• 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
• Vasquez v. United Enters. OF Sw. Fla., Inc.
  811 So. 2d 759· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-03-06 ·cited 3×
  Vasquez appealed a jury verdict finding that Fidelity United, an employee leasing company, was not liable for negligence committed by Gladys Diaz, a restaurant manager whom Fidelity United formally employed but whom the restaurant owner retained actual control over. The appellate
• Gainer v. City of Winter Haven
  170 F. Supp. 2d 1225· M.D. Fla.· 2001-06-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims failed because their speech was not a matter of public concern or did not play a substantial part in their termination, and their procedural due process claims failed due to adequate state remedies.
• Palermo v. Corr. Med. Servs. Inc.
  133 F. Supp. 2d 1348· S.D. Fla.· 2001-04-03 ·cited 3×
  Summary judgment is granted for most claims, except for Freddie Mills's claims against CMS and Dr. Fisher, which will proceed to oral argument.
• Gutter v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours
  124 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2000-09-20 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the Special Master's recommendations regarding the crime-fraud exception, finding that DuPont's attorney-client and work product privileges were vitiated by its fraudulent conduct, but set aside the recommendation to unseal the crime/fraud hearing transcript.
• Villanueva v. City of Fort Pierce
  24 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 1998-10-20 ·cited 3×
  Summary judgment was granted for the defendants because the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding discriminatory policy, pretext, or clearly established law violations, and the chief was not a final policymaker.
• Dudley v. Metro-Dade Cnty.
  989 F. Supp. 1192· S.D. Fla.· 1997-10-25 ·cited 3×
  The court granted summary judgment for the County, finding that the plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment were time-barred or not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and that the County took prompt remedial action upon learning of the harassment.
• Bolanos v. Bain
  696 So. 2d 478· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-07-02 ·cited 3×
  Police officers appealed a trial court's denial of their motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a case where a police dog bit and dragged a minor fleeing from police for misdemeanor retail theft. The appellate court affirmed denial of summary judgment for Off
• Mann v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  946 F. Supp. 962· M.D. Fla.· 1996-11-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Creasys' actions, even with deputy presence, did not constitute state action under § 1983, and thus granted their motion for summary judgment. The court also found that factual issues remained regarding the Sheriff's liability for failure to train and supe
• The City OF Hialeah v. Fernandez
  661 So. 2d 335· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-09-27 ·cited 3×
  This § 1983 civil rights case addresses qualified immunity for police officers and a police chief accused of using excessive force during an arrest following a high-speed chase. The court held that the individual officers' actions did not violate clearly established law and thus
• Liberti v. Walt Disney World Co.
  912 F. Supp. 1494· M.D. Fla.· 1995-09-08 ·cited 3×
  The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims, granted plaintiffs' motion on the workers' compensation affirmative defense, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion regardin
• Pontier v. City of Clearwater
  881 F. Supp. 1565· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-13 ·cited 3×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the federal claims barred by the statute of limitations and lack of standing, and dismissing the state law claim for lack of pendent jurisdiction.
• Lucas v. Cannon
  848 F. Supp. 168· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the defendant under Florida Statute § 768.28 and federal civil rights statutes.
• Cinque v. Ungaro
  622 So. 2d 1051· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-07-28 ·cited 3×
  The court reviewed a denial of a motion to amend a complaint to correct the identity of a partner whose alleged negligence caused a decedent's death, and a subsequent summary judgment for the medical partnership, after the statute of limitations had run.
• Johnson v. Moore
  958 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a municipal judge acting in a judicial capacity does not create municipal policy for § 1983 liability, and the plaintiff lacked standing for injunctive relief due to speculative future harm.
• Morton v. City OF Little Rock
  934 F.2d 180· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that claims against the City and Wilson were time-barred, and the claims against Gatewood were barred by qualified immunity and failure to establish municipal policy.
• Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.
  1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4678· M.D. Fla.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the pervasive display of sexually explicit images and the occurrence of sexually demeaning remarks created a sexually hostile work environment, violating Title VII.
• Gutierrez v. City of Hialeah
  729 F. Supp. 1329· S.D. Fla.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that plaintiffs' counsel failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry into the law and facts, thus violating Rule 11, and denied the motion for reconsideration of sanctions.
• Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc.
  892 F.2d 1481· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 3×
  Settlement offers made during administrative proceedings do not qualify as reasonable accommodation under Title VII, and an employer's failure to attempt accommodation before refusing to hire constitutes an unlawful discriminatory act.
• Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc.
  881 F.2d 1426· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the defamation claims because the challenged statements were either non-actionable opinion or protected by the First Amendment, and the plaintiff failed to show actual malice.
• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
  688 F. Supp. 1522· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 3×
  Local government officials are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their legislative acts, and are not personally liable for the actions of subordinates unless they directed or had personal knowledge of the wrongdoing.
• John and Jane DOE v. FT. Lauderdale Med. Ctr. Mgmt., Inc.
  522 So. 2d 80· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-09 ·cited 3×
  Jane Doe alleged sexual battery by a medical center manager who fraudulently represented himself as a doctor during a job interview physical examination. The court reversed summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding apparent authority, negligent supervision, and
• Mount Wash. Tanker Co. v. Wahyuen Shipping, Inc.
  833 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a vessel owner is not automatically absolved of liability when a compulsory pilot is in charge; the owner must prove the pilot was solely at fault for the collision.
• Hull v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
  812 F.2d 590· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-18 ·cited 3×
  A contractual provision for indemnity is enforceable when the indemnitee does not seek indemnification for its own negligence, even if the indemnitee is partially negligent.
• In re Litigation
  622 F. Supp. 1430· S.D. Fla.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the class action settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable, and approved it, finding it was reached without collusion and served the overriding public interest in favor of settlement.
• Stephenson v. United States
  771 F.2d 1105· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 3×
  An employee's deviation from employment duties does not necessarily remove them from the scope of employment if they are performing an act directed by the employer and intended to benefit the employer at the time of the accident.
• French v. Jinright & Ryan
  735 F.2d 433· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the record was insufficient to determine if the prior arbitration proceeding decided the claims against the architect on the merits or if the award constituted full satisfaction under Georgia law.
• Saunders v. State OF R.I.
  731 F.2d 81· 1st Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the jury's answers to interrogatories were inconsistent with each other and the general verdict, requiring a new trial, and that the jury instructions were incomplete due to the timing of the certification of questions to the state supreme court.
• Carr v. Bell
  492 F. Supp. 832· N.D. Fla.· 1980-06-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Deputy Bell and Johnny Huckaby are liable under § 1983 for violating Mr. Carr's constitutional rights, but Sheriff Cook is not.
• Hand v. City OF N. Miami
  211 So. 2d 36· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-06-04 ·cited 3×
  This case concerns whether a municipality can be held liable under respondeat superior for the actions of its employee committed outside the municipality's territorial jurisdiction. The court held that such actions, if committed, are ultra vires and do not create municipal liabil
• Rollins Leasing Corp. v. Billy R. Lovette et ux.
  198 So. 2d 865· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-04-25 ·cited 3×
  Rollins Leasing Corporation and employee David Crowder appealed a judgment for plaintiff Sandra Lovette based on simple negligence in a motor vehicle accident. The court reversed, holding that Lovette was a guest passenger under Florida's guest statute, which bars recovery absent
• 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.
• N. Brevard Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Deligdish
  398 So. 3d 1126· Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-12-20 ·cited 2×
  A government hospital has absolute immunity from defamation claims based on statements made by its CEO acting within the scope of his duties as a public official, but does not have absolute immunity for statements made by private counsel representing the hospital.
• Wood v. Royal Plus, Inc.
  388 So. 3d 1121· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-05-29 ·cited 2×
  An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's negligence when the employee has clocked out and is traveling home, as the going-and-coming rule applies and workers' compensation exceptions do not extend to tort claims against employers by third parties. Florida recognize
• Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan
  387 So. 3d 477· Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-05-24 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiffs established a reasonable factual basis for punitive damages claims based on gross negligence in the re-credentialing of a surgeon with a documented history of adverse incidents and known alcohol problems. However, because the trial court granted a motion for judgment o
• McGowan v. Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Ctr.
  2021 WL 2944462· S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim against the defendant treatment center because it alleged only a single incident and did not plead a policy or custom, and failed to name individual defendants.
• Chakra 5, Inc. v. THE City of Miami Beach
  354 So. 3d 1126· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-01-11 ·cited 2×
  A municipality does not violate procedural due process when it provides constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation and post-deprivation remedies to challenge alleged harmful actions by city employees, even if those employees act corruptly or commit crimes. The Due Process Clause r
• Newcome v. Hernando Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Hernando County Sheriff's Office is not a suable entity and dismissed claims against it, while also dismissing various other claims for failure to state a claim or due to shotgun pleading, granting leave to amend.
• Tsuji v. Fleet
  326 So. 3d 143· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-08-04 ·cited 2×
  This case concerns whether claims against a deceased tortfeasor's estate and their insurer are time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that claims against the estate and the employer (vicariously liable) were time-barred under Florida's Proba
• Indoneisia Peterson v. Mohamed Ibrahim & Cisco Sys., Inc.
  320 So. 3d 972· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for Cisco Systems, Inc. The court held that an employee driving to a temporary work site was not acting within the scope of his employment under the "going and coming" rule, and therefore Cisco was not vicariously liable for the emp
• Hunter v. Shaw
  182 So. 3d 784· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The Sheriff of Columbia County appeals a trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on improper venue. The court held that a government entity sued vicariously for an employee's negligence is not a joint tortfeasor within the recognized exception to the home venue privil
• Duplantis v. Brock Specialty Servs., Ltd.
  85 So. 3d 1206· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-04-27 ·cited 2×
  Rick Duplantis appeals from an order awarding attorney's fees against him based on his rejection of a $300,000 offer of judgment. The court reversed, holding that the offer was invalid because it failed to separately apportion liability when vicarious liability was genuinely disp
• Robbins v. City of Miami Beach
  769 F. Supp. 2d 1372· S.D. Fla.· 2011-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, finding that while some assault and battery claims against an officer were dismissed for failure to state a claim, other claims, including excessive force and conspiracy, could proceed.
• Peterson v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
  753 F. Supp. 2d 1245· S.D. Fla.· 2010-11-30 ·cited 2×
  A cruise line is not vicariously liable for the negligence of its onboard medical staff under general maritime law, and the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a voluntarily assumed duty.
• Drudge v. City of Kissimmee
  581 F. Supp. 2d 1176· M.D. Fla.· 2008-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no constitutional violation and that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
• Xerox Corp. & Ricardo Vescovacci v. Smartech Document Mgmt., Inc.
  979 So. 2d 957· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-11-28 ·cited 2×
  Xerox and a company president appeal an order denying their motion to compel arbitration of defamation and tortious interference claims brought by their former authorized sales agent. The court reversed, holding that the broad arbitration clause covers the dispute and that thresh
• Murdick v. Catalina Mktg. Corp.
  496 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2007-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion to strike Murdick's photographs without prejudice, allowing their use for impeachment purposes, but requiring Murdick to show substantial justification for any other use. The court's ruling on Moussonne's statement was not fully detailed in the provide
• Walsh v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
  466 F. Supp. 2d 1271· S.D. Fla.· 2006-12-20 ·cited 2×
  A cruise line cannot be held liable for the negligence of its ship's medical staff, nor does it have an affirmative duty to provide medical services like wheelchairs to passengers.
• Rayvon L. Boatman v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  924 So. 2d 906· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed dismissal of moot claims for declaratory and injunctive relief but reversed dismissal of damages claims arising from alleged excessive force and medical indifference, remanding for trial court consideration of the merits.