THOMAS F. TUBERVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Tuberville sued Concrete Construction Company for damages caused by its employee Coffman's assault. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the company based on finding Coffman acted outside his scope of employment. The appellate court reversed, holding that whether an employee's tort falls within the scope of employment is typically a jury question unless only one conclusion is possible.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the question of whether a tort by an agent is within the scope of employment is normally to be determined by the jury except in cases where only one conclusion could be sustained. Here, the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that should have been submitted to the jury.
[1] The question of whether an employee's tortious act was committed within the scope of employment is generally a question of fact for the jury.
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate when there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an employee acted within the scope of 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“the question of whether a tort committed by an agent is within the scope of his employment is normally to be determined by the jury, except in those cases in which a jury could reach only one conclusion that could be sustained”
Establishes the legal standard for scope of employment claims—normally a jury question unless one conclusion is inescapable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTuberville brought an action against Concrete Construction Company and its employee Gerald Coffman to recover damages from an assault. Evidence showed…
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 Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
This action was brought by appellant against appellee Concrete Construction Company and defendant Gerald Coffman to recover damages sustained by appellant as a result of the actions of Coffman, an employee of appellee. Appellee’s motion for summary judgment upon the grounds that Coffman was not acting in the course of and within the scope of his employment was granted, and it was ordered that the cause proceed as to defendant Coffman alone. Appellant now seeks reversal of that summary judgment upon the ground that the issue of whether Coffman was acting within the scope of his employment when the assault occurred was an issue for the jury.
We must agree with the appellant and reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of appellee. We do not deem it necessary herein to set forth the factual details of the assault and attending circumstances. It is well-settled that the question of whether a tort committed by an agent is within the scope of his employment is normally to be determined by the jury, except in those cases in which a jury could reach only one conclusion that could be sustained. City of Green Cove Springs v. Donaldson, 348 F.2d 197 (5th Cir., 1965). We do not believe that the present case fits into this *432latter category. Here, there was evidence that appellant and Coffman had encountered difficulties prior to the incident which is the subject of this suit and that Coff-man’s superior had notice thereof. There was also evidence that Coffman felt somewhat pressured from his superiors to obtain greater and faster results and that, after this incident, appellee merely found him another job in another location. Wc think this evidence created a genuine issue of material fact and that the issue of whether Coffman was acting within the scope of his employment should have been submitted to the jury for its determination. Columbia By the Sea, Inc. v. Petty, 157 So.2d 190 (Fla.App.2nd, 1963). City of Miami v. Simpson, 172 So.2d 435 (Fla.1965); Sixtysix, Inc. v. Finley, 224 So.2d 381 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1969); Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 257 So.2d 95 (Fla.App.3rd, 1972).
The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burroughs Corp. & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Am. Druggists' Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…conclusions to be drawn, the matter is one which should be submitted to a jury. Gonpere Corp. v. Rebull, 440 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Lay v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Tuberville v. Concrete Construction Co., 270 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Whetzel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 266 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Columbia By The Sea, Inc. v. Petty, 157 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Relevant facts and inferences concerning scope of employment may deal with th…
-
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s tortious acts are within the scope of his employment relationship is normally to be determined by the jury, except in those cases in which a jury could reach only one conclusion that could be sustained. Tuberville v. Concrete Construction Company, 270 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Accord, Gordils v. DeVilliers, supra; Alsay-Pippin Corp. v. Lumert, 400 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Gold Coast Parking, Inc. v. Brownlow, 362 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 368 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1979). In N…
-
Parsons v. Weinstein Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…were committed by an agent of the corporation within the scope of his employment, the questions of agency and scope of employment are to be resolved by a jury. Weiss v. Jacobson, 62 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1953); Tuberville v. Concrete Construction Company, 270 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 257 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Soden v. Starkman, 218 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Dye v. Reichard, 183 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Columbia By The Sea, Inc. v. Petty, 157 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Columbia BY THE SEA, Inc. v. Petty, 157 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- City of Green Cove Springs v. Donaldson, 348 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Sixty-Six, Inc. v. Finley, 224 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Forster v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 257 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)