LOVIN MOOD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DOREEN BUSH AND JAMES BUSH, 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.
Lovin Mood, Inc. appeals denial of its motion for summary judgment seeking worker's compensation immunity in a negligence action brought by employee Doreen Bush for injuries sustained in an attack and rape by a customer. The court holds that Bush's injuries arose out of her employment and are therefore covered by worker's compensation exclusivity, entitling the employer to immunity.
Lovin Mood is entitled to worker's compensation immunity. The undisputed facts establish the necessary causal connection between Bush's injuries and her employment, as her injuries arose out of the course and scope of her employment and fall within the exclusivity provision of section 440.11.
[1] An employer is entitled to worker's compensation immunity when an employee's injuries arise out of and in the course of employment.
[2] An employee's injuries sustained during an attack and rape by a customer in the employer's store can establish the necessary causal connection between the injuries and em…
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“We hold that these undisputed facts establish the necessary causal connection between Bush's injuries and her employment.”
Establishes the court's holding that the facts support a finding that the injury arose out of employment, satisfying the requirement for worker's compensation coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDoreen Bush was working alone at Lovin Mood's store in Mariner Mall, a somewhat isolated area of the mall. A male customer entered the store and lured…
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 Exclusivity Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lovin Mood, Inc., appeals an amended nonfinal order denying its motion for summary judgment in a negligence action brought by employee Doreen Bush for injuries sustained by Bush in an attack and rape committed by an alleged “customer” in its store. Lovin Mood sought summary judgment based on the immunity provided by section 440.11 of the Worker’s Compensation Law. Holding that Lovin Mood is entitled to such immunity, we reverse and remand.
This court has jurisdiction to review the order appealed, as no material facts are in dispute and the only issue remaining is whether Lovin Mood is entitled to worker’s compensation immunity as a matter of law. See rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi), Fla. R.App. P.; Gustafson’s Dairy, Inc. v. Phiel, 681 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(“As in Hastings [v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ], we conclude that Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) is intended ‘to apply only when an appellate court is presented with a record with facts so manifest it can readily conclude that a plaintiffs exclusive remedy is in fact workers’ compensation....’” ).
On the day of the attack, Bush was working alone in Lovin Mood’s Mariner Mall location, a store located in a somewhat isolated area of the mall. At approximately 11:45 a.m., a lone male “customer” entered Lovin Mood and asked Bush if they carried a certain type of underwear. The “customer” lured Bush to the rear of the store and suddenly began beating her about the head. The “customer” then dragged her into the store’s back office and raped her.
We hold that these undisputed facts establish the necessary causal connection between Bush’s injuries and her employment. See § 440.09(1) Fla. Stat.; and see, e.g., Jean Barnes Collections v. Elston, 413 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(rejecting employer’s contention that claimant’s injury resulting from assault and rape did not arise out of course and scope of employment where claimant was traveling at employer’s request); Jenkins v. Wilson, 397 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(rejeeting employer’s contention that claimant’s injury resulting from rape in company parking lot did not arise out of her employment where employment created the hazard, i.e., claimant worked late).
Accordingly, Bush’s injuries fall within the exclusivity provision of section 440.11 and Lovin Mood is entitled to the immunity provided thereby.
We REVERSE and REMAND with directions for the trial court to enter judgment for Lovin Mood.
BOOTH, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiz v. Aerorep Grp. Corp., 941 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…employment, worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for the injury, and the employer is provided with immunity from any other liability for the injury. FCCI Ins. Co. v. Home, 890 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Lovin Mood, Inc. v. Bush, 687 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). While there are exceptions to worker’s compensation immunity, there are no allegations in the [*508] second amended complaint supporting the applicability of any of the exceptions. Although workers’ compensation immunity usu…
-
Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…ts have a long history of finding criminal injuries compensable with no difficulty, either rejecting civil tort claims in favor of compensability, or confirming compensability of cases brought into comp from the outset. See Lovin Mood, Inc. v. Bush, 687 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that that a rape was compensable because the victim was an employee and at work when the crime occurred); Prof. Tel. Answering Serv., Inc. v. Grace, 632 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[W]e are called upon to de…
-
Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Brant Williams, 998 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…Shova, 630 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla.1993) (citing § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat.); see also Ruiz v. Aerorep Group Corp., 941 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing FCCI Ins. Co. v. Horne, 890 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Lovin Mood, Inc. v. Bush, 687 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)) (“When an employee’s injury arises out of the course and scope of his or her employment, worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for the injury, and the employer is provided with immunity from any other liability for t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Jenkins v. Wilson, 397 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Gustafson's Dairy, Inc. v. Phiel, 681 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Collections v. Jayne Rhodes Elston, 413 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)