GERALDINE WOODS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, 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.
Geraldine Woods appealed a summary judgment dismissing her personal injury action against the City of Miami for injuries allegedly caused by a police officer who knocked her down in a courthouse corridor. The court reversed, holding that whether a police officer was acting within the scope of employment presents a fact question for the jury when the record contains varying inferences.
The court reversed summary judgment, holding that whether an employee's act was committed within the scope of employment presents a question for the jury when varying inferences and conclusions can be drawn from the facts. The court concluded that based on this sketchy record, the City failed to establish as a matter of law that the officer was not acting in furtherance of his duties.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when the record is too sketchy to establish as a matter of law that an employee was not acting in furtherance of their employer's duties.
[2] Whether an employee's act was committed within the scope of employment is generally a question for the jury when varying inferences and conclusions can be drawn from the…
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 intelligence“the City of Miami has failed to establish as a matter of law — in accord with its burden on summary judgment — that the police officer was not acting in furtherance of his duties with the City at the time and place of this incident”
Establishes that the City bore the burden of proving the officer was not acting within the scope of employment, and failed to meet that burden
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Geraldine Woods alleged she was injured when an unidentified uniformed City of Miami police officer, in the company of other unknown officer…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
This is an appeal from an adverse final summary judgment in a personal injury action. We reverse.
Plaintiff Geraldine Wpods alleges that she was injured when an unidentified uniformed City of Miami police officer in the company of several other unknown police officers “rushed by” her at approximately 12:30 p.m. in the corridor of the • courthouse known as the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building (formerly known as the Metropolitan Justice Building) and knocked her to the floor. We conclude based on this sketchy record that the City of Miami has failed to establish as a matter of law — in accord with its burden on summary judgment — that the police officer was not acting in furtherance of his duties with the City at the time and place of this incident. As such, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
Whether an employee’s act was committed within the scope of his employment or in furtherance of the employer’s interest generally presents a question for the jury when there are varying inferences and conclusions to be drawn. Maybin v. Thompson, 514 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Burroughs Corp. v. American Druggists Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Genpere Corp. v. Rebull, 440 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). As the Second District Court of Appeal explained:
Concerning scope of employment, only where the facts are completely settled and the inferences to be drawn from the facts lead to but one conclusion can it be said that the issue is one which may be decided by the court as a matter of law.
Burroughs v. American Druggists, 450 So. 2d at 544.
We do not think that it can be said for certain in the instant case that there is but one inference to be made or one conclusion to be drawn based on this sketchy record about a police officer’s presence in the corridors of a courthouse during the noon lunch hour. Hence, this matter is clearly not one for resolution on summary judgment. However, we do not preclude the entry of a directed verdict for the City of Miami at trial because (a) the plaintiff, rather than the City, will have the burden of proof on the scope of employment issue and (b) a more developed record may be presented at trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canaveras v. The Cont'l Grp., Ltd., 896 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…furtherance of perceived business interest in ensuring that workers’ time away from their jobs was not unnecessarily wasted precluded summary judgment for employer with respect to pizza deliveryman’s personal injury action); Woods v. City of Miami, 646 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(observing that whether an employee’s acts have been committed within scope of his employment or in furtherance of his employer’s interest is generally a question for the jury when there are varying inferences and conclusions that…
-
Ford v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp. & Gilton Siqueira, 855 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…s as to whether, at the time of the accident, the employee had reentered the scope of his employment while on his way to park the state vehicle in the assigned parking lot for the night. This question is one for the jury. See Woods v. City of Miami, 646 So. 2d 836, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(‘Whether an employee’s act was committed within the scope of his employment or in furtherance of the employer’s interest generally presents a question for the jury when there are varying inferences and conclusions to be drawn…
-
The K Co. Realty LLC v. Marc-Jean Pierre, 376 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…ther an [agent’s] act was committed within the scope of his employment or in furtherance of the [principal’s] interest generally presents a question for the jury when there are varying inferences and conclusions to be drawn.” Woods v. City of Mia., 646 So. 2d 836, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); accord Ford v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 855 So. 2d 264, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “Concerning scope of employment, only where the facts are completely settled and the inferences to be drawn from the facts lead to but one concl…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burroughs Corp. & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Am. Druggists' Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Gonpere Corp. v. Rebull, 440 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Bernard v. State, 514 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)