BERNICE WILLIAMS APPELLANT,
v.
DALE DEAN ROTH AND JOHN DEAN, 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.
Summary judgment on the battery claim should be reversed because the employee's scope of employment is a question of fact for the jury, while summary judgment on the negligent hiring and retention claim is affirmed.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when the question of whether an employee acted within the scope of employment at the time of an incident is a genuine issue of material…
[2] A party moving for summary judgment must conclusively demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA tenant sued their landlord for battery by an employee and for negligent hiring and retention of that employee. The trial court granted summary judgm…
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 Negligent Retention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a tenant in an apartment owned by appellees, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment on claims alleging battery by an employee of appellees, and negligent hiring and retention of that employee by appellees. We affirm the summary judgment as to the claim for negligent hiring and retention. However, we are constrained to reverse the summary judgment as to the battery claim.
We acknowledge that appellees’ entitlement to a summary judgment on the battery claim is a close question.
However, in cases such as this, whether the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim is normally a question for the trier of fact. Lay v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Moreover, to be entitled to a summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate conclusively that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact, even after all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the party opposing the summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). When reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, our task is to determine from the record whether a genuine issue exists as to a material fact. “[A]ll doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party”; if “the slightest doubt remains,” a summary judgment cannot stand. Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
We are satisfied that no issue exists as to any material fact regarding the claim for negligent hiring and retention. However, on the record before us, we are unable to reach the same conclusion as to the battery claim. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment as to the negligent hiring and retention claim; but reverse the summary judgment as to the battery claim, and remand for further proceedings as to that claim. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Chips Express, Inc., 676 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…(Fla.1994); Tisdale v. BP Oil Company, 622 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “When reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the court’s task is to determine from the record whether a genuine issue exists as to a material fact.” Williams v. Roth, 622 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In actions involving motor vehicle collisions, a rebuttable presumption of negligence attaches when the driver of a following vehicle strikes the lead vehicle. Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla.19…
-
Higgs v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr. & Manuela F. Decespedes, M.D., 654 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation was not untimely. When a district court reviews a summary judgment, the court’s task is to determine from the record whether a genuine issue exists as to material fact. Williams v. Roth, 622 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The court is required to review everything in the record in a light most favorable to the position of the party moved against. Megdell v. Wieder, 327 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1087 (1976). The movin…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Donesta S. LAY and Larry R. Lay v. Roux Labs., Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)