DAVID R. FIERRO AND MELANIE TYANN FIERRO, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CROM CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Employer is not vicariously liable for employee's negligence in a motor vehicle accident involving a third party when the employee was voluntarily transporting coworkers in a private vehicle between work and temporary housing, as the traveling employee exception applies only in workers' compensation cases.
An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's negligence in a motor vehicle accident involving a third party when the employee voluntarily transported coworkers in a private vehicle between work and temporary housing.
[1] The traveling employee exception recognized in workers' compensation cases does not extend to permit tort actions against employers for traveling employees' negligence re…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelanie Fierro was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee of Crom Corporation who was voluntarily transporting other employees in a…
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 Motor Vehicle Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered for appellee, an employer who was the defendant in a tort action, based upon the employer’s alleged vicarious liability for its employee’s alleged negligence in a motor vehicle accident injuring a third party, appellant, Melanie Fierro. The accident occurred while the employee was voluntarily transporting other employees in a privately owned vehicle between the employees’ place of work and their temporary residence while working for the employer away from their normal place of residence.
Appellant urges us to apply the “traveling employee” exception followed in Leonard v. Dennis, 465 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985). Leonard, however, applies that exception only in workers’ compensation cases in regard to torts arising out of incidents occurring when an employee is away from home. We decline to extend that exception provided in workers’ compensation cases for the “traveling employee” to permit an action against an employer for his traveling employee’s negligence resulting in injuries to third parties. We choose instead to follow the reasoning of Sussman v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 557 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1990). We, therefore, affirm the summary judgment entered below.
RYDER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indoneisia Peterson v. Mohamed Ibrahim & Cisco Sys., Inc., 320 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)). Ms. Peterson's reliance on the "traveling employee" rule is misplaced. This rule is distinct from the "going and coming" rule applied in negligence cases involving third parties. As we summarized in Fierro v. Crom Corp., 617 So. 2d 379, 379-80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the "traveling employee" exception . . . applies . . . only in workers' compensation cases in regard to torts arising out of incidents occurring when an employee is away from home. We decline to extend that exception prov…
Authorities Cited
- Sussman v. Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc., 557 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Leonard v. Dennis, 465 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)