Respondeat Superior

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

• Whittington v. Moore McCormack Lines, Inc.
  196 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1952-04-30
  The court held that an employee's injury caused by a co-worker's assault, even if intentional by the co-worker, is considered 'accidental' under the New York Workmen's Compensation Act if not instigated or directed by the employer.
• El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Lackey
  186 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1951-01-08
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of negligence and that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, despite company rules.
• O'Brien v. Pub. Serv. Taxi Co.
  178 F.2d 211· 3d Cir.· 1949-12-07
  A common carrier is liable for an assault by its employee on a passenger during the contract of carriage, even if the employee is the direct perpetrator.
• Baker Driveaway Co., Inc. v. Clark
  162 F.2d 181· 4th Cir.· 1947-05-13
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to justify submitting the issue of whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment to the jury.
• R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Newby
  153 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1946-02-28
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of negligent retention to the jury, nor in allowing disparate judgments against the employer and employee, and that the jury was not misled by the instructions regarding the guest statute.
• Hill Transp. Co. v. Everett
  145 F.2d 746· 1st Cir.· 1944-11-30
  An employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of a minor employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the employee's conduct should be judged by the standard of care applicable to adults, not minors.
• S. States Towing Lines, Inc. v. Lee Transit Corp. the Comanche
  144 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-21
  The charterer is liable for damages to the tug caused by the negligent navigation of a pilot placed in charge by the charterer, which superseded the tug's master.
• Rumberger v. Welsh
  131 F.2d 384· 2d Cir.· 1942-11-16
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of negligence against the truck driver and his employer, but not against the party who hired the truck and driver.
• Jones v. Bankers Life Co.
  131 F.2d 989· 4th Cir.· 1942-11-12
  The court held that the insurance company was not liable for its agent's alleged fraudulent conduct because the agent acted outside the scope of his limited authority and the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Daffin Mercantile Co., Inc. v. Trawick
  145 Fla. 314· Fla.· 1940-12-17
  A wrecker operator sued a truck owner for damages resulting from an accident while towing the owner's disabled truck, claiming the truck owner was negligent in leaving an untrained seventeen-year-old boy to steer the truck during towing. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jud
• Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Sawyer
  119 Fla. 491· Fla.· 1935-03-25
  The court reversed a judgment against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, finding that the lower court erred in dismissing the case against the employee defendant sua sponte. This dismissal improperly placed the burden of defense solely on the employer when the employee was
• Blumenthal v. Commercial Bank of ST. Augustine
  S.D. Fla.· 1924-07-21
  District court overruled demurrers filed by a bank and its cashier-vice president in a case alleging they aided and abetted a felonious larceny, holding that a corporation is responsible for tortious acts of its agents committed within the scope of employment.
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Sharon Tell v. Roman Catholic Bishops OF Diocese OF Allentown
  Del. Super. Ct.·
  The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Delaware's long-arm statute did not grant jurisdiction and that exercising jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for juri