LINDA HUFFMAN AND JAYSON PENN, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF MELISSA JANE JONES, DECEASED, AND LINDA HUFFMAN, AS GUARDIAN OF AL DANIEL PRINCE, III, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
BREEZES FULL SERVICE CAR WASH; JOHN PAUL CASH, JR.; DICK'S WINGS USA, INC.; SPIDOR HOLDINGS, INC., D/B/A DICK'S WINGS, BARBARA E. BAKER, AND JOSHUA LACKOWSKI, 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.
In this wrongful death and personal injury case, the appellate court reversed a summary judgment for a car wash employer, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether two employees were acting within the scope of employment when they allegedly committed negligent acts during a business lunch that included alcohol consumption, leading to a fatal collision.
The summary final judgment in favor of Breezes was reversed because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Cash and Lackowski were acting within the scope of employment at the time of the luncheon. Although Lackowski's deposition testimony could be construed as supporting a finding that they had ceased acting in the scope of employment, it could also be construed to support the appellants' contrary position.
[1] Summary final judgment is improper when disputed issues of material fact exist regarding whether employees were acting within the scope of their employment.
[2] An employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees if those acts occurred within the scope of their employment.
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 reverse the summary final judgment because there are disputed issues of material fact regarding whether two of Breezes's employees, Cash and Lackowski, were acting within the scope of their employment when, during the course of a luncheon which included the consumption of alcoholic beverages, they allegedly committed negligent acts which caused the subsequent automobile collision.”
States the core legal issue and the appellate court's holding that genuine disputes preclude summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter closing due to rain, several employees of Breezes Full Service Car Wash, including owner/manager Cash and manager Lackowski, attended a luncheon…
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.
The appellants challenge a summary final judgment in favor of Appellee Breezes Full Service Car Wash (“Breezes”) in this civil suit for personal injury and wrongful death growing out of an automobile collision. We reverse the summary final judgment because there are disputed issues of material fact regarding whether two of Breezes’s employees, Cash and Lackowski, were acting within the scope of their employment when, during the course of a luncheon which included the consumption of alcoholic beverages, they allegedly committed negligent acts which caused the subsequent automobile collision.
On the afternoon of the collision, after closing the car wash due to a rain storm, several Breezes employees had lunch and consumed alcoholic beverages together at a restaurant. Cash, an owner and manager of Breezes at the time, hosted the luncheon, and Lackowski, also a manager, was in attendance. When the luncheon ended, Lackowski drove away from the restaurant and collided shortly thereafter with a motor vehicle driven by Melissa Jones. Jones was killed and her son was injured. The appellants thereafter filed suit alleging that Breezes was vicariously liable for negligent acts committed by Cash and Lackowski during the luncheon.
Breezes moved for summary final judgment, asserting that it could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Cash or Lackowski because the undisputed facts demonstrated that these employees had ceased acting within the scope of their employment prior to the luncheon. Construing certain deposition testimony by Lackowski, the trial court agreed and entered the summary final judgment under review. In doing so, however, the trial court improperly resolved disputed issues of fact. Although Lackowski’s testimony can be construed as supporting a finding that neither he nor Cash was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the luncheon, it can also be construed as supporting the appellants’ position to the contrary. Because the record does not resolve disputed material issues of fact in this regard, entry of summary final judgment in favor of Breezes was improper. The summary final judgment is accordingly reversed and this case is remanded.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.