Respondeat Superior

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

• Craft v. The United States
  542 F.2d 1250· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-01
  The court held that a soldier assigned housing and required to maintain the surrounding grounds was acting within the scope of his employment when he injured a child while mowing the lawn.
• Lumumba Shakur v. McGRATH
  517 F.2d 983· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-04
  The court held that the service of an amended complaint adding a medical malpractice claim did not constitute substantial and timely compliance with the notice requirements of New York's General Municipal Law.
• Valencic v. Grand Union Co., Inc.
  43 Fla. Supp. 50· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1974-04-15
  An eight-year-old girl was sexually molested by a Grand Union employee in the store's parking lot. The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on claims of negligent hiring and respondeat superior, finding jury questions exist regarding whether the employer failed to
• Watts v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
  491 F.2d 601· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-07
  The court held that there was substantial evidence of negligence and proximate cause to support the jury's verdict, and that refusing to instruct the jury on the workmen's compensation carrier was not prejudicial error.
• Emmett C. Worley v. Columbia GAS OF Ky., Inc.
  491 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-27
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution due to lack of probable cause and the affirmative defense of advice of counsel, and that certain defendants were not liable due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy.
• Emmett M. Bridger v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
  480 F.2d 566· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-27
  The court held that the issue of whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident presented a question of fact for the jury, not a matter for summary judgment.
• Mrs. Barbara Janusa Smith v. Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc.
  475 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20
  The court affirmed the summary judgment for the defendant employer.
• Standley v. Johnson
  276 So. 2d 77· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-04-17
  The court reversed a summary judgment that dismissed a negligence claim against an employer, holding that the employee's task of transporting gasoline for the employer's lawn mower on the morning of the accident created a factual question about whether the employee was acting wit
• Dillard v. City of Eustis
  38 Fla. Supp. 30· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1972-11-08
  Plaintiffs sued the City of Eustis for negligence after a traffic light malfunction caused a motor vehicle collision. The court granted the city's motion to dismiss on the basis of municipal immunity, holding that maintaining traffic lights is a governmental function not subject
• 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.
• Dewitt v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  34 Fla. Supp. 99· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-07-10
  In this discovery dispute arising from a fatal railroad-automobile collision, the court ruled that a defendant railroad company must answer interrogatories asking whether an automobile would be visible from a tank car at various distances, despite the defendant's objections that
• Atlanta & Saint Andrews BAY Ry. Co. v. Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp.
  415 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-19
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, as factual issues remained regarding the lessor's duty to replace equipment and whether the lessee's actions caused the fire damage.
• Duty v. Dotson
  406 F.2d 816· 6th Cir.· 1969-02-14
  The court held that the trial judge's refusal to sustain challenges for cause against two prospective jurors, who were plaintiffs in pending lawsuits, was not reversible error under the facts of this case.
• DeLOACH v. Thirty-Seven Inc.
  31 Fla. Supp. 180· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-12-31
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motions for a new trial and directed verdict n.o.v., nor in its rulings on costs.
• 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.
• Rivenbark v. Johns
  205 So. 2d 711· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-01-04
  In this consolidated appeal from two wrongful death cases arising from a vehicular accident in Florida, the court affirmed liability verdicts against a bus owner and truck driver despite their arguments that the initial negligence of the bus caused the victim's car to be struck b
• Rich v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  192 So. 2d 2· Fla.· 1966-11-23
  A railroad is responsible for the malpractice of its doctor only where it had actual knowledge of the doctor's unfitness or the doctor's reputation was so bad that knowledge is imputed.
• Pochis v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co.
  26 Fla. Supp. 179· Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1966-07-15
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the engineer but against the railroad was not inconsistent, and the plaintiff's argument regarding warning signals was permissible.
• Bejma v. Dental Dev. & Mfg. Co.
  356 F.2d 227· 6th Cir.· 1966-02-11
  The court reversed a summary judgment for the electric company, finding that the language of an unrecorded easement did not, as a matter of law, grant the right to clear a 30-foot swathe for its transmission lines, even if the easement was constructively known to the purchasers.
• Hertz Corp. v. Dixon
  26 Fla. Supp. 22· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1965-11-17
  Hertz Corporation sued vehicle co-owners Dixon and Gibbs for damages from an automobile collision caused by Dixon's negligence. The court held that Gibbs, as a co-owner who neither operated the vehicle, was present at the scene, nor consented to its operation, could not be held l
• 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.
• Dist. Certified TV Serv., Inc. v. Neary
  350 F.2d 998· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-03
  An employee's intentional act of swerving into another vehicle during an extended flight from an initial collision, which involved reckless disregard for traffic laws and culminated in an assault on a police officer, constitutes a 'frolic' and is not within the scope of employmen
• Will Essary v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  346 F.2d 61· 6th Cir.· 1965-06-03
  A party is estopped from asserting a position in a subsequent legal action that is inconsistent with a position taken in a prior action, especially when the inconsistent position would prejudice the opposing party.
• Gumm v. Nat'l Homes Acceptance Corp.
  339 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1965-01-05
  The court held that the presumption of an employee acting within the scope of employment, typically applied to automobile drivers, does not extend to other instrumentalities like a motel room and its contents.
• 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.
• Fort Lauderdale Transfer, Inc. v. Leonard Bros. Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.
  167 So. 2d 762· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-10-02
  Fort Lauderdale Transfer and Noah Johnson appealed a summary judgment granted against them in favor of Union Metal Company. The case involves a negligence claim arising from the collapse of a radio tower during erection, turning on whether Lester Lower was Union Metal Company's e
• Mrs. John B. McKINLEY v. Rawls
  333 F.2d 198· 4th Cir.· 1964-03-27
  The court held that the evidence of employee deviation was sufficiently balanced to present a jury question regarding employer liability.
• Gross v. Eustis Fruit Co., Inc.
  160 So. 2d 55· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-01-29
  The court held that the appellee, Eustis Fruit Company, was an independent contractor and not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the actions of the truck driver.
• Ruth S. Keller and her husband v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  156 So. 2d 775· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-10-08
  The court held that the owner of a vehicle is not liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine when the driver used the vehicle without the owner's consent or knowledge, even if the driver was an employee.
• 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.
• Johnson v. Morgan F. Livingston
  315 F.2d 429· 4th Cir.· 1963-03-13
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the driver of the truck was acting as an agent or employee of the owner within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
• The Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. L. J. Marcotte Ins. Agency
  314 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1963-03-08
  The court must determine if a workman injured by an automobile at the end of a workday, after being dropped off at a garage where he left his personal vehicle, was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
• Mich. Mut. Ins. Co. & City of Chattanooga v. Royal Indem. Co.
  313 F.2d 467· 6th Cir.· 1963-02-23
  This dissenting opinion argues that venue for a suit in general assumpsit on an implied contract should not be established by implying venue based on the debtor seeking the creditor, especially when the contract was consummated elsewhere.
• Kaufman v. Eagle Roofing & ART Metal Works
  21 Fla. Supp. 24· Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1963-01-17
  The court held that the trial judge's findings of fact and legal conclusions were correct, warranting judgment for the United States.
• Wise v. W. Union Tel. Co.
  24 Fla. Supp. 63· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1962-12-15
  In this negligence action arising from a bicycle accident, the court granted Western Union's motion for summary judgment, holding that the telegraph company's employee messenger was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred during his lunch break, a
• Valeriani v. Davis
  147 So. 2d 337· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-12-11
  The appellate court reversed a summary judgment for a partnership in a damages action for assault, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the partnership's liability for its truck driver's alleged assault.
• Gilbertson v. de Long
  301 F.2d 284· 7th Cir.· 1962-04-03
  A parent who sponsors a minor's driver's license is jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the minor's negligent operation of a vehicle, even if the injured party is the sponsor parent.
• Brown v. Anzalone
  300 F.2d 177· 3d Cir.· 1962-02-16
  The court held that an employee building a fire to warm himself while repairing his truck in sub-zero temperatures was acting within the scope of his employment, making the employer liable for injuries caused by the fire.
• Nichols v. McGRAW
  19 Fla. Supp. 14· Santa Rosa Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1962-01-30
  A plaintiff sued McGraw, a driver, and Gerlach Motor Company for wrongful death and injuries resulting from a motor vehicle collision. The court granted summary judgment for Gerlach Motor Company on all four counts, finding insufficient evidence of the company's liability under t
• Riedel v. Atlas van Lines, Inc.
  272 F.2d 901· 8th Cir.· 1959-12-30
  The court held that neither Knowles nor Atlas were liable for the plaintiff's injuries because the employee, Harris, deviated from the scope of his employment by using an unauthorized vehicle for repairs, and Atlas was not exercising control over Harris at the time of the acciden
• Jacobi v. Charett
  15 Fla. Supp. 1· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1959-09-16
  A car repair shop argues it should not be liable to the car owner in a cross-claim for indemnity when both are sued by a third party injured by the shop's employee's negligence. The court holds that an auto owner who becomes liable to third parties due to a bailee-for-hire's negl
• 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.
• Re-Mark Chem. Co., Inc. v. Fad Ross
  101 So. 2d 163· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-03-04
  A party in possession and control of an automobile, even if not the record owner, is liable for injuries caused by the negligence of another using the car with their knowledge and consent.
• Canadian Indem. Co. v. Ohio Farmers' Indem. Co. & Prudential Assurance Co. of London
  251 F.2d 563· 9th Cir.· 1958-01-15
  The court held that the appealing insurance company failed to establish its claim that the underlying judgment was based solely on respondeat superior, thus failing to shift liability to other insurers.
• Priebe v. Am. Fid. & Cas. Co.
  251 F.2d 56· 6th Cir.· 1957-12-31
  A party who is free of fault and discharges a tort claim against them is entitled to indemnity from another party who is primarily responsible due to their relationship.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Mrs. Claire B. Carpenter
  234 F.2d 528· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-08
  The court held that Hackett was not an insured under the policy because he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and the policy language, particularly the rider, did not extend coverage to him under those circumstances.
• Petrekovich v. The Pa. R.R. Co.
  233 F.2d 948· 4th Cir.· 1956-05-19
  The court held that the jury could have found the railroad liable under the last clear chance doctrine, despite the decedent's negligence.
• Jones v. Avco Mfg. Corp.
  218 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1955-01-21
  The court held that the employer is not liable for the employee's negligence in transporting his wife without the employer's knowledge or authority.
• Sylvester (Buddy) Johnson v. Taddoni
  217 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1954-11-16
  The court held that the evidence did not establish negligence by Taddoni, nor that Taddoni was Sambroski's agent at the time of the accident, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• Blessing v. Jacobson
  196 F.2d 545· 8th Cir.· 1952-05-12
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of agency to submit the question to the jury, as reasonable minds could differ on whether the trip was for the mutual benefit of the pilot and the defendant.