EASTERN PROJECTS, INC., APPELLANTS,

v.

MARTIN BLATE, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Whetzel v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 266 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
  …2d 904. The law also appears clear that an agent going to or returning from a business meeting or convention where there is no clear-cut deviation is within the scope of his employment. Southern Life and Health Insurance Co. v. Smith, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 784. The conduct of a servant is within the “scope of his employment” only if it is of the kind he is employed to perform, it occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits and it is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the ma…
• Reina v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 304 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1974)
  …ds which he deems necessary, expedient, or convenient, and the methods adopted prove intentionally harmful to others the employer may be held liable. E. g., Sixty Six, Inc. v. Finley, supra; Southern Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Smith (Fla.App.1969), 218 So. 2d 784; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Burquest (Fla.App.1958), 101 So. 2d 828, and Weiss v. Jacobson (Fla.1953), 62 So. 2d 904. The rule relating to intentional torts committed by the employee is similar to that applicable in the negligent tort context; t…
• Weiss v. Culpepper, 281 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
  …on that the mere going to or from work in one’s own automobile is not in the course of employment. Foremost Dairies, Inc. of the South v. Godwin, 158 Fla. 245, 26 So. 2d 773 (1946) and Southern Life & Health Insurance Company v. Smith, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 784. There are exceptions to this “going and coming rule”,1 but the burden of proof is upon the party desiring to invoke such an exception. Turning to the case sub judice, the record on appeal clearly reflects that at the time of the accident defendant…