BRUCE CRAFT, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN SIROUNIS AND SONS, INC., IR ISREAL, THOMAS JOSEPH LANADORE, RICHARD RHODES, JAMES YOUNG, THE CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH AND THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, APPELLEES
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.
Bruce Craft was injured in a bar fight with four off-duty police officers and sued the officers and their employer cities for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the officers' conduct fell outside the scope of their employment and was therefore protected by sovereign immunity.
The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that the officers' conduct was not within the scope of their employment because it was not the type of conduct officers are hired to perform, did not occur within authorized time and space limits, and was not activated by a purpose to serve the employer. Sovereign immunity therefore precluded liability for the cities.
[1] A state or its subdivision is not liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent committed while acting outside the course and scope of employ…
[2] Conduct is within the scope of employment only if it is the type of conduct the employee is hired to perform, occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The state or its subdivision shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent committed while acting outside the course and scope of his employment or committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property.”
This quote establishes the sovereign immunity statute that protects municipalities from tort liability when their officers act outside the scope of employment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCraft was drinking at a bar in Pompano Beach in the early morning hours when he got into a fight with four off-duty police officers—one employed by th…
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 Apparent Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff/appellant, Bruce Craft, appeals from a final summary judgment en tered in favor of the defendants. The record shows that Craft was drinking at a bar in Pompano Beach in the early morning hours when he got into a bar room brawl with four “off-duty” police officers. One of the officers was employed by the City of Deerfield Beach and the others were employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale. None of the officers was in uniform, carrying a gun, or wearing a badge. Craft was injured in the fight and sued the officers and the cities of Fort Lauderdale and Deer-field Beach alleging negligence. The cities moved for summary judgment and in support of their motion filed the affidavits of their chiefs of police. The affidavits both indicate that these officers were not on duty or acting for their respective cities at the time that the incident occurred. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment Craft filed a sworn statement alleging that one of the officers had used his authority as a policeman to tell the doorman at the bar not to get involved saying, “[TJhis is none of your business, get back inside, we’re police.” Further, Craft relied on the affidavits of the police officers wherein each of them asserted that he was on duty 24 hours a day. The trial court granted the summary judgment.
Craft argues on appeal that there was an issue of fact as to whether the police officers were on duty at the time of the fight and whether they had apparent authority to act for the cities. We disagree and affirm the final summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The sovereign immunity statute precludes such action in section 768.28(9)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989) which provides:
The state or its subdivision shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent committed while acting outside the course and scope of his employment or committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property.
2) The conduct of the officers was not within the scope of their employment nor was their action in the interest of the cities. Conduct is only within the scope of employment if (a) it is the type of conduct which the employee is hired to perform, (b) it occurs substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed, (c) the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. Sussman v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 557 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Curtis v. Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc., 513 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Rabideau v. State, 391 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
McGHEE v. Volusia Cnty., 679 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1996)…ee is hired to perform, it occurs substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed, and conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. Craft v. John Sirounis and Sons, Inc., 575 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). When differing inferences may be drawn concerning whether an employee is operating within the scope of employment, the question is generally for the jury. See Weiss v. Jacobson, 62 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1953). McGhee v. Volusia Count…1 / 3
-
Mason v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund, 699 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…use there was not even the pretense of lawful right in McNally’s performance of this act, it was not with in the scope of his employment. See McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So. 2d 729, 730-731 (Fla.1996) (citing Craft v. John Sirounis and Sons, Inc., 575 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). Accordingly, we hold that McNally’s acts were not covered by the Fund. AFFIRMED. W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur. . Wc also agree with Mason that there is no difference between the tort of battery and the crime of battery.…
-
Alfino v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 676 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…o perform, the conduct occurs substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed, and the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. Craft v. John Sirounis and Sons, Inc., 575 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Applying these standards to the allegations set forth in Mr. Alfino’s complaint, it was obvious to the trial court that the privilege applied to the defendants in this case. In this regard, the exhibits attached to the complaint…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sussman v. Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc., 557 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Brigette Rabideau v. The State of Fla. & Oscar Sambrine, 391 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- McCULLUM v. State, 513 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Curtis v. Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc., 513 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Craft v. John Sirounis & Sons, Inc., 574 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)