RICARDO REINA, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Plaintiff Reina sought damages from Metropolitan Dade County for an assault committed by a bus driver after Reina had already alighted from the bus and made an obscene gesture to the driver. The court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for the County, holding that the driver's assault occurred after the passenger-carrier relationship had terminated and was not motivated by furthering the employer's interests.
The trial court properly granted the directed verdict for the County because the passenger-carrier relationship had terminated when Reina alighted and crossed the street, and the driver's assault was not motivated by furthering the employer's interests but rather was a personal retaliation for the obscene gesture.
[1] A common carrier's duty to a passenger may extend beyond the physical act of alighting from the vehicle when the carrier's employee engages in a "hot pursuit" of the pass…
[2] A directed verdict for a defendant is proper when the plaintiff's conduct could not have impeded the progress of the defendant's vehicle on its route.
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“because of the "hot pursuit" of plaintiff by the bus driver, the contract of carriage had not terminated when the plaintiff was assaulted and the County could be found liable on the principles regarding the common carrier-passenger relationship”
States the appellant's primary argument for why the County should be liable despite the directed verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReina boarded a County bus operated by James Koch and paid a quarter when the fare was 30 cents. After a verbal exchange about the fare, Reina signale…
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 And Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment, entered pursuant to a directed verdict, in an action to recover damages for an assault and battery committed upon the appellant-plaintiff by a bus driver [defendant’s employee].
The plaintiff boarded a County bus operated by James Koch. He placed a quarter in the fare box and the bus driver exchanged words with him regarding the fare being 30 cents, not 25 cents. Several blocks further, the plaintiff pulled the cord to signal the driver that he wanted to get off the bus, but the driver did not stop. The plaintiff again pulled the cord and the driver stopped in the center of the street. After the plaintiff got off the bus [when he had reached the sidewalk] he made an obscene gesture to the driver. When the driver saw the gesture, he pulled the bus off to the side of the road, stopped, and ran after the plaintiff, yelling at him. The driver kicked and beat the plaintiff, as a consequence of which the plaintiff was hospitalized. The plaintiff sued both the bus driver [Koch] and the County. At the trial of plaintiff’s action against the County, both plaintiff and the County moved for directed verdicts at the close of the evidence. The plaintiff’s motion was denied and the County’s granted. Final judgment was entered on the directed verdict in favor of the County, from which the plaintiff appeals.
The appellant contends the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, when the following evidence existed from which a jury might lawfully find in favor of the plaintiff: That, because of the “hot pursuit” of plaintiff by the bus driver, the contract of carriage had not terminated when the plaintiff was assaulted and the County could be found liable on the principles regarding the common carrier-passenger relationship; and that, because the bus driver was motivated by a desire to further the interests of his employer when he assaulted the plaintiff and because the assault was a continuation of the verbal altercation on the bus, the County could be found liable on the principles of respondeat superior, citing primarily Columbia By The Sea, Inc. v. Petty, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 190; Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 95; Anno. 34 A. L.R. 372, and cases cited therein.
The appellee replies to this argument that Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., supra, is inapplicable under the circumstances because in the cited case the conduct on the part of the injured party, which was impeding the progress of the bus towards the beach, was likely to continue as the bus proceeded down the expressway. The facts in the instant case are just the opposite. The passenger had alighted the bus and was across the street when he was attacked. His conduct could not have impeded the progress of the bus as it continued on its route. We believe the trial judge was correct in the entry of his order directing a verdict for the County. See: Weiss v. Jacobson, Fla. 1953, 62 So. 2d 904; White v. Alleghany Cab Co., Inc., S.Ct.N.Y.1941, 29 N.Y.S.2d 272; George v. Youngstown Municipal Ry. Co., 49 Ohio Law Abst. 412, 86 N.E. 2d 916. The other points urged for reversal have been examined and found to be without merit.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Harris v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 378 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ute it with due diligence, such power was recognized in Reddish v. Forlines, supra. It was said its purpose was to prevent unnecessary harassment and delay in litigation. The power was also noticed in Nicholson v. Eli Lilly & Co., Fla. 3rd DCA 1973, 285 So. 2d 648. In Popkin v. Crispen, supra, it was observed that Rule 1.420(e) would not prevent a trial court from dismissing an action for lack of due diligence in prosecution, even though affirmative action has been taken within a period of one year prior to d…
-
Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Lassitter, 295 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…ecause an agency relationship was prima facie established by the proofs. See also Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 257 So. 2d 95 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1972); Watkins v. Sims, 81 Fla. 730, 88 So. 764 (Fla.1921). Cf. Reina v. Metropolitan Dade County, 285 So. 2d 648 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1973), where it was determined that the assault was clearly not in the performance of his master’s duties. Authority to support a finding of vicarious liability for tortious behavior is seen in Wackenhut Corporation v. Greene, 238 So…
-
Perez v. Zazo, 498 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…r of what Rodriguez “took personally” was related to his work — that he got made over something on his job— does not mean that his reaction was. Two decisions in particular support our conclusion to this effect. In Reina v. Metropolitan Dade County, 285 So. 2d 648 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), cert. discharged, 304 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1974), after a heated disagreement with the driver over a bus fare, the passenger alighted, reached the sidewalk and flashed an obscene gesture from there at the driver. The latter responded t…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Columbia BY THE SEA, Inc. v. Petty, 157 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Weiss v. Jacobson, 62 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1953)
- Forster v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 257 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)