EMMA WILLIAMS, AS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF ROBERT WILLIAMS, A MINOR, DECEASED, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
WOMETCO ENTERPRISES, INC., 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.
The court held that the property owner was not vicariously liable for the security guard's actions because there was no evidence of the owner's notice of the guard's dangerous propensities.
The plaintiff's son was killed by a security guard at the defendant's theater. The trial court granted summary judgment for the theater owner, relying…
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 Inherently Dangerous Activity cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, Wometco Enterprises, Inc. Appellant’s son was shot and killed at appellee’s theater, the Capitol Theater, by a security guard. Appellant instituted this action, naming appellee, the security guard, and the security guard’s employer, and Patrick Lane Detective Agency, Inc., and its insurer as co-defendants. The judgment appealed was entered only in favor of Wometco.
The record demonstrates that in granting summary judgment the trial judge relied squarely upon this court’s holding in Brien v. 18925 Collins Avenue Corp., Fla.App. 1970, 233 So. 2d 847. We think the court’s reading of the case was correct.
In Brien, we stated that a lawful activity involving the use of a firearm was not an inherently dangerous activity. We concluded that the owner of real property who hires a security corporation would not be vicariously liable for the negligent discharge of a firearm by the employee of the independent contractor, absent a showing that the owner had or ought to have had notice of the dangerous propensities of the guard employed by the security corporation.
The theater manager in the instant cause testified by deposition that, she had seen the security guard, Kenneth Graham, before only as a patron of the theater. She said when he approached the theater on the day in question he was carrying a shotgun and wearing only an undershirt and old jeans. The manager ordered Graham not to bring the shotgun into the theater, whereupon he put it into his car and returned to the theater to speak with another guard. We do not think that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the theater exercised either supervision and control over the security guard or had knowledge of his dangerous propensities.
Therefore, for the reason stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. Priest, 413 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…n, 341 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 946 (1977), (4) the owner/employer knew or had reason to know that the independent contractor would not perform in a satisfactory manner, see, e.g., Williams v. Wometco Enterprise, Inc., 287 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 294 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1974); Brien v. 18925 Collins Avenue Corp., 233 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), or (5) where the independent contractor had apparent authority to act on behalf of the owner/employer, Stuyvesant Cor…
-
U.S. Sec. Servs. Corp. v. Ramada INN, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…tees, including reasonable protection against third-party criminal attacks; it is solely a breach of the independent contractor’s tort duty to conduct itself in a reasonably safe manner so as not to injure third parties. Williams v. Wometco Enters., 287 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 294 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1974); Brien v. 18925 Collins Avenue Corp., 233 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). In the instant case, however, Ramada has quite properly been held legally responsible for the independent contractor…
-
Payne H. Midyette v. Madison, 559 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1990)…at an inherent danger did not exist “in the absence of an allegation that the owner had or ought to have had notice of the dangerous propensities of the guard” employed by the independent contractor. Id. Accord Williams v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc., 287 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 294 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1974). By the same token, our courts have held that some types of activities — such as operating a crane — can only be described as “inherently dangerous.” Geffrey v. Langston Const. Co., 58…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brien v. 18925 Collins Ave. Corp., 233 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)