EDUARDO MONTADAS, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE SCRAP IRON AND METAL, INC., 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.
Eduardo Montadas, a pizza deliveryman, sued Dade Scrap Iron and Metal after allegedly being attacked by the company's vice president/owner during a dispute over a late delivery. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the alleged attacker was not acting within the scope of employment, but the appellate court reversed, finding factual disputes precluded summary judgment on the scope-of-employment question.
Where there are disputed facts surrounding whether an employee's act was committed within the scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer's business interests, summary judgment is inappropriate and the matter must proceed to trial. The determination of scope of employment is a question of law only when there are no factual conflicts in the record.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate where disputed facts exist regarding whether an employee's actions were within the scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer…
[2] A factual dispute concerning whether an employer had a practice of ordering food to expedite employee breaks can raise a question of whether an employee's actions were in…
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“Where, as here, there are disputed facts surrounding the question of whether an employee's act was committed within the scope of his employment and/or in furtherance of his employer's business interests, the entry of summary judgment is inappropriate.”
Establishes the core holding that summary judgment is improper when factual disputes exist regarding scope of employment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMontadas, a pizza deliveryman, was allegedly attacked by the vice president and owner of Dade Scrap Iron and Metal during an altercation concerning 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 Scope Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eduardo Montadas, a pizza deliveryman, appeals an adverse final summary judgment entered in his personal injury action below.
The trial court essentially concluded as a matter of law that the vice president/owner of appellee Dade Scrap Iron and Metal, Inc., who allegedly attacked Montadas in an altercation over a late delivery, was not acting within the scope of his employment nor in furtherance of appellee’s interests.
We reverse because there are conflicting accounts in the record as to whether appellee had a practice of ordering in pizza for its employees to expedite their lunch breaks in order to make more productive use of their time.
Thus, there is an underlying factual dispute as to whether the alleged attacker was acting in furtherance of a perceived business interest in ensuring that his employees’ time away from their jobs was not unnecessarily wasted. Where, as here, there are disputed facts surrounding the question of whether an employee’s act was committed within the scope of his employment and/or in furtherance of his employer’s business interests, the entry of summary judgment is inappropriate. Gonpere Corp. v. Rebull, 440 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (citing City of Miami v. Simpson, 172 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1965), Weiss v. Jacobson, 62 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1953), Parsons v. Weinstein Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and Gold Coast Parking, Inc. v. Brownlow, 362 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert, dismissed, 368 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1979)); cf. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 525 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 536 So. 2d 245 (Fla.1988); Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (both cases finding that scope of employment is an issue of law where there is no fact conflict).
The entry of summary judgment was therefore error.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Arizona L. Sumlar v. Sumlar, 827 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…pellant after the parties’ separation. The paternal grandfather testified that Appellee had repaid him for the out-of-pocket amounts spent for the child’s care. Therefore, an award of retroactive child support in some amount is proper. Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that trial court abused its discretion by failing to award child support retroactively, where record demonstrated child’s need, and former husband’s ability to pay existed when dissolution petition was filed); Campbell v…
-
Tish Bardin v. State, 720 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…modification where the need for the support and the ability of the former spouse to pay existed at the time that the modification petition was filed. Anderson v. Anderson, 609 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citation omitted).3 In Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), this court held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award retroactive child support to the date that the petition for dissolution was filed. The Beal court explained that “the child’s needs and the [fa-therm…
-
State OF Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…directing that the mother shall relinquish all her rights to receive support from the minor child’s father. The case law is clear that parents may not waive their children’s right to support because that right belongs to the children. Beal v. Beal, 666 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Kirkconnell v. Kirkconnell, 222 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The parties stipulated to the mother’s waiver of child support in exchange for the father’s waiver of his rig…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Roce Simpson, 172 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1965)
- Sarron v. Barbel I. Sarron, 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Weiss v. Jacobson, 62 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1953)
- Gonpere Corp. v. Rebull, 440 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Parsons v. Weinstein Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Gold Coast Parking, Inc. v. Brownlow, 362 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Geller v. Wanderman, 525 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)