GALLAHAD ASSOCIATES D/B/A GALLAHAD SOUTH AND CHEROKEE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDREA ROSE ET AL., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cherokee Insurance and Gallahad Associates appealed a trial court's ruling that insurance coverage applied to injuries caused by an employee pool boy during an incident in the pool. The court affirmed, holding that the employee was acting within the scope of employment despite the recreational nature of the conduct.
The court held that Reidi's conduct fell within the scope of employment and that the insurance coverage applied. An employer remains liable for torts committed by employees in slight deviations from business duties unless the deviation amounts to an abandonment of the master's business.
[1] An employer is liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the course and scope of employment, even if there is a slight deviation from duties, unless the dev…
[2] Evidence that an employer allowed pool attendants to use the pool to cool off and that an employee frequently played with children in the pool supports a finding that the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an employer is liable for torts committed by his servant in a slight deviation or departure from his business unless the deviation or departure amounts to an abandonment of the master's business”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for scope of employment in employer liability cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGallahad Associates owned an apartment complex and employed Ines Reidi as a pool boy responsible for cleaning, chemical maintenance, and providing ame…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employer Liability For Employee Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an appeal by Cherokee Insurance Company, Inc., and Gallahad Associates from a final order1 in which the trial court ruled that all insurance coverage provided by Cherokee to Gallahad applied to any negligent acts of defendant Ines Reidi involving plaintiff/appellee Andrea Rose. The court based that ruling on its finding that Reidi, Gallahad’s employee, was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he injured appellee. The coverage issue was severed from the primary personal injury action by Andrea Rose and Hildegarde Rose against Reidi, Gallahad and Cherokee.
Appellant Gallahad is the owner of an apartment complex. Gallahad employed Reidi as a pool boy, whose duties included keeping the pool area clean, checking the pool water chemicals, vacuuming the pool, and providing towels and umbrellas for the apartment tenants. On the day in question he was in the shallow end of the pool “fooling around” with Andrea Rose. As a result, Andrea hit the bottom and chipped several teeth. There was evidence that the management allowed pool attendants to use the pool to cool off during the warm weather and that on many occasions Ines Reidi would play with children in the pool. This was known by both Ines’s father, under whom he worked, and by the Gallahad management.
As the Supreme Court of Florida said in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Michel, 120 Fla. 511, 163 So. 86 (1935), an employer is liable for torts committed by his servant in a slight deviation or departure from his business unless the deviation or departure amounts to an abandonment of the master’s business. See also: Orr v. Avon Florida Citrus Corporation, 130 Fla. 306, 177 So. 612 (1937); Collazo v. John W. Campbell Farms, 213 F. 2d 255 (5th Cir. 1954).
Our study of the record convinces us that there was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s findings as to insurance coverage and Ines Reidi’s scope of employment. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. . State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. American Hardware, 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1977). Contra: Ogur v. Mogel, 390 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burroughs Corp. & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Am. Druggists' Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…he deviation and before the act at issue was committed; and could the employer have expected or foreseen the employee’s conduct. Gonpere Corp., supra; Johnson v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Galahad Associates v. Rose, 392 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Lay, supra; Morrison Motor Co. v. Manheim Services Corp., 346 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1978); Whetzel, supra; Columbia By The Sea, supra; Thurston v. Morrison, 141 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns, 429 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…amo Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Summers, 404 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) and P. & H. Vehicle Rental and Leasing Corp. v. Garner, 416 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We further acknowledge that we indicated a contrary view in Gallahad Associates v. Rose, 392 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) but in doing so we relied on State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. American Hardware, 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1977), a case decided prior to revision of the rules and adoption of the rule we rely on here. Accordingly, the petition for…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Emery F. Hogue, 438 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…-final order which finds that they are liable to Hogue for insurance coverage. The company asserts that this court has jurisdiction to review such an order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) and Gallahad Associates v. Rose, 392 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bruns, 429 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this court distinguished Rose and held that, under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), this court does not have jurisdiction to review these orders. We also decline t…
Authorities Cited
- Mrs. Eunice E. Orr v. Avon Fla. Citrus Corp., 130 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1937)
- W. Union Tel. Co. v. Michel, 120 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1935)
- Ogur v. Mollie Mogel, 390 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Gort v. State, 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1977)
- Collazo v. John W. Campbell Farms, Inc., 213 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1954)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Penny Lynn Maddox v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 345 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1977)