Respondeat Superior

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

• Taylor v. Gilmartin
  686 F.2d 1346· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing verdicts on the false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim for lack of state action.
• Life Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. DEL Aguila
  417 So. 2d 651· Fla.· 1982-07-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the teachers' First Amendment claims, precluding summary judgment.
• Padway v. Palches
  665 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper on Title VII claims regarding reassignment and discharge due to disputed facts suggesting sex discrimination, but individual defendants are not liable for back pay. Summary judgment was also reversed for § 1983 and § 1985(3) claim
• Henriksen v. The Honorable Judge Vernon G. Bentley
  644 F.2d 852· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 26×
  A judge is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a clerk's actions under respondeat superior, but a clerk's claim for denial of access to courts requires further factual development regarding qualified immunity.
• Swietlowich v. Cnty. OF Bucks & Twp. of Bristol & Harry Merker & Sgt. Stanley Martin & Sgt. Walter Hughes & Patrolman H. J. McDonough
  610 F.2d 1157· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions on the statute of limitations were inadequate because they focused on the alteration of police logs rather than the misleading statements made to the plaintiff, requiring a new trial.
• Domingo Roque Molina v. Paul T. Richardson & the City of Los Angeles
  578 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's decision, find jurisdiction, and infer a cause of action against the city directly from the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Morrison Motor Co. & Middlesex Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Manheim Servs. Corp.
  346 So. 2d 102· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that neither the driver nor the person arranging transport were employees acting within the scope of their employment, and the auto auction did not owe a non-delegable duty to the third-party victims.
• Jones v. Wittenberg Univ.
  534 F.2d 1203· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff could not reserve the right to appeal after accepting a remittitur.
• Navarro v. Chief OF Police
  523 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute, as the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct.
• Hinton v. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. & Steve Dellinger
  317 So. 2d 832· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-07-23 ·cited 26×
  Betty Hinton obtained a judgment against truck owner Ralph Quinlan in a personal injury case arising from an accident, then attempted to sue the truck driver Steve Dellinger and his insurer for the same accident. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the seco
• Draeger v. Grand Cent., Inc.
  504 F.2d 142· 10th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the store could not be held vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the off-duty officer's actions, as a private entity lacks the requisite official character for state action. However, the store could be held liable for false arrest and imprisonment.
• Martha Phillips et vir v. Hall
  297 So. 2d 136· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-18 ·cited 26×
  A negligence plaintiff who recovered a judgment against an employer (Publix) for an employee's negligent act cannot subsequently sue the employee for the same negligence. The court held that a master-servant relationship is distinguishable from joint tort-feasorship, and where a
• Spicy v. City OF Miami
  280 So. 2d 419· Fla.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 26×
  An arrest requires the arresting officer to have a substantial reason, based on their own observation at the time, to believe a misdemeanor is being committed; reliance on a third party's subsequent determination is insufficient.
• Breeding v. Massey
  378 F.2d 171· 8th Cir.· 1967-06-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that admitting evidence of the company's net worth was prejudicial error, especially given the intertwined issues of compensatory and punitive damages and the lack of clear jury instructions.
• United States v. First SEC. Bank of Utah
  208 F.2d 424· 10th Cir.· 1953-11-10 ·cited 26×
  Settlements with a government employee and their insurers, which expressly reserve the right to sue the United States under the Tort Claims Act, do not bar recovery against the United States, and the negligence of the employee can be the proximate cause of injuries even with a co
• United States v. Sharpe
  189 F.2d 239· 4th Cir.· 1951-05-10 ·cited 26×
  The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries caused by a service member driving a personal vehicle for personal reasons, even if traveling to a duty station.
• Jules J. Colle v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  153 Fla. 258· Fla.· 1943-07-02 ·cited 26×
  Property owners sued Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and its engineer for damages caused by fire allegedly originating from locomotive sparks. The trial court granted a directed verdict for both defendants, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed as to the railroad company, h
• Reece v. Ebersbach
  152 Fla. 763· Fla.· 1942-09-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for wrongful death against the employer because the employee's tortious act was not alleged to be within the scope of employment or ratified by the employer.
• Carter v. J. Ray Arnold Lumber Co.
  83 Fla. 470· Fla.· 1922-04-01 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of an administrator's wrongful death action against a lumber company for negligently operating a log train that killed a man using the company's railroad trestle as a foot path. The court held that the complaint stated
• Bender v. Caregivers OF Am., Inc.
  42 So. 3d 893· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-08-18 ·cited 25×
  Ethel Bender appeals a summary judgment against her in a negligence action arising from a vehicle accident while receiving home-health-aide services from CareGivers of America. The court reverses, holding that a pre-incident release must specifically reference the term 'negligenc
• Sinni v. Scottsdale Ins.
  676 F. Supp. 2d 1319· M.D. Fla.· 2010-01-04 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the insurer was relieved of its duty to defend due to exceptional circumstances, including the omission of material facts from the complaint and the insureds' delay in providing notice, and that the plaintiff's claims were not covered by the policy due to work
• Pope v. Winter Park Healthcare Grp., Ltd.
  939 So. 2d 185· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-10-06 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict for a hospital in a medical malpractice case, holding that a hospital's express contract with a patient to provide medical treatment creates a nondelegable contractual duty that cannot be discharged merely by
• Goldman v. Halifax Med. Ctr., Inc.
  662 So. 2d 367· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-09-15 ·cited 25×
  Nancy Goldman appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice complaint against Halifax Medical Center, arising from a ruptured breast implant caused by a radiologic technologist's negligent application of pressure during a mammogram. The Florida appellate court held that hospi
• Pellegrino v. Jeffrey Horwitz, M.D.
  642 So. 2d 124· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-09 ·cited 25×
  An appeal from an order dismissing one count of a complaint is not permitted when other counts against the same parties remain and arise from the same transaction, even if they involve different legal theories.
• Jones v. Gulf Coast Newspapers, Inc.
  595 So. 2d 90· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-01-24 ·cited 25×
  A dismissal with prejudice of the active tortfeasor, even when accompanied by a release expressly reserving rights against the employer, bars a subsequent vicarious liability claim against the employer because the plaintiffs cannot establish the employee's liability, which is a p
• Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc.
  926 F.2d 1406· 3d Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) by alleging a 19-month scheme of mail fraud.
• Yellow BUS Lines, Inc. v. Drivers
  883 F.2d 132· D.C. Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 25×
• Nicki Arron Bonner v. Mr. Lewis
  857 F.2d 559· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim and the due process claim, but affirmed summary judgment on the equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims. The dismissal of the Director was affirmed for Section 1983
• Rafael D. Arango, M.D., & Taranco & Assocs. Anesthesiology Grp., P.A. v. Reyka
  507 So. 2d 1211· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-06-03 ·cited 25×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict finding a joint venture between a hospital and an anesthesiology group, establishing vicarious liability for the hospital in a wrongful death medical malpractice action. The court held that a joint venture can exist betw
• Thigpen v. United States
  800 F.2d 393· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that claims arising out of assault or battery by a government employee are barred by the FTCA's intentional tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), even if pleaded as negligence, and that the plaintiffs' resistance negated any claim of consent.
• Carter v. Dist. OF Columbia
  795 F.2d 116· D.C. Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in allowing extensive introduction of allegations of prior police misconduct, necessitating a new trial on claims submitted to the jury. The court also affirmed the directed verdict for the municipality on the constitutional tort claim.
• Bertold J. Pembaur, M.D. v. City OF Cincinnati
  746 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the prosecutor was entitled to good faith immunity and that the county was not liable for the sheriff's actions as no county policy was established. However, the dismissal of the claim against the city was vacated and remanded.
• Norton v. United States
  581 F.2d 390· 4th Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge believes the government should not escape liability based on the personal immunity of its officers, as the FTCA amendment waived sovereign immunity without conditioning it on the absence of officer immunity.
• Fla. Real Est. Comm'n v. McGREGOR
  336 So. 2d 1156· Fla.· 1976-07-30 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida's real estate licensing statute, as applied to mortgage company employees selling repossessed residential properties, violates equal protection guarantees because the statutory exceptions for corporate officers bear no rational relation
• Thompson v. Taylor
  183 So. 2d 16· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-02-01 ·cited 25×
  Taylor sued Seven-Eleven for malicious prosecution after being arrested based on a store manager's identification, which the manager later doubted at a preliminary hearing. The trial court allowed the case to proceed to a jury, which awarded Taylor damages, but the appellate cour
• Sauer v. Sauer
  128 So. 2d 761· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-03-31 ·cited 25×
  Richard James Sauer appealed a jury verdict awarding $10,000 in punitive damages against him as a bailee of a rental automobile. The court affirmed, holding that Sauer's conduct in directing his minor sister to hit the plaintiff with the vehicle while kidnapping the plaintiff's c
• Leonard v. Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla., Inc.
  103 So. 2d 243· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-06-05 ·cited 25×
  A rental car company sought summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action based on a contract provision forbidding anyone but the renter from driving the car. The court reversed, holding that a car rental company's liability under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine ca
• Meeks v. Johnston
  85 Fla. 248· Fla.· 1923-02-26 ·cited 25×
  L. H. Meeks brought a wrongful death action against a married woman, Willa May Johnston, for the death of his minor child struck by her automobile. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a husband remains liable at
• Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc.
  575 So. 2d 179· Fla.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 24×
  Wells Fargo sought to recover damages from Sunshine Security for a robbery committed by Sunshine's employee. After the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a default judgment on the ground that the original complaint failed to state a cause of action, the trial court dismissed
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  844 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 24×
  Private parties acting under color of state law are not entitled to good faith immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but may assert a good faith defense.
• Am. Fed'n OF Unions Local 102 Health & Welf. Fund v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF THE United States
  841 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 24×
  Holden was an ERISA fiduciary regarding commissions tied to claims paid, but not for advice given before his fiduciary role began. Equitable was not an ERISA fiduciary.
• Arsenio C. Saporito v. Ziccarello
  843 F.2d 666· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 24×
  Former employees who retired under one plan lack standing to sue for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA if they received all benefits due under that plan, but they may have standing to sue under ERISA § 510 if they allege they were tricked into retiring by selective disclosure
• Grantham & Mann, Inc. v. Am. Safety Prods., Inc.
  831 F.2d 596· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Grantham's proof of damages for breach of contract was too speculative under Tennessee law, and that Grantham failed to establish injury caused by RICO violations.
• Raysor v. Port Auth. OF NEW York & NEW Jersey
  768 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was inconsistent and damages inadequate, requiring a new trial on some claims. It also reversed the dismissal of state tort claims against Officer Simpson and the Port Authority.
• Bellamy v. Bradley
  729 F.2d 416· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Eighth or Sixth Amendments, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• Petrites v. J. C. Bradford & Co. & Rowland Allen Hyde
  646 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that punitive damages and attorneys' fees are not recoverable under Rule 10b-5, but may be available under pendent state claims, and affirmed the jury's findings regarding due diligence and the applicability of the Florida Blue Sky Law.
• Gen. Portland Land Dev. Co. & Greater Fla. Inv. v. Stevens
  395 So. 2d 1296· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-04-15 ·cited 24×
  Old Port Cove appealed summary judgment granted in favor of Hembree Masonry on Old Port Cove's indemnity claim arising from a worker injury caused by negligent operation of a buck hoist. The court reversed and remanded, holding that material factual questions remained unresolved
• MAY v. Enomoto
  633 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc.
  387 So. 2d 422· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-08-04 ·cited 24×
  In this wrongful death case arising from a truck accident, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages against Alterman Transport Lines and its driver Charles Penley for the death of Margaret Alexander.
• Rich v. United States Lines, Inc.
  596 F.2d 541· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff failed to present evidence on the theories of liability argued to the district court, despite the concurring judge's view that a negligence claim under land-based theories might have been viable.