SYKES
v.
BABIJUICE CORP.
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 case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for a citrus packing plant company when an employee (Holt), acting without authorization, took a company truck on a personal errand and collided with Sykes' vehicle, killing Sykes. The court held the employer was not liable because the employee was clearly acting outside the scope of his employment without the company's knowledge or consent.
The company is not liable. Holt was not acting within the scope of his employment when he took the truck, was not using the vehicle with the company's express or implied knowledge or consent, and there was no evidence of prior acquiescence by the company to such unauthorized use.
“It is plain that Holt was not acting within the scope of his employment when he took the defendant's truck from the premises. It is plain, moreover, that Holt was not using the motor vehicle at the time of the accident with defendant's knowledge or consent, express or implied.”
Establishes the two key factors defeating employer liability: lack of scope of employment and lack of knowledge or consent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBabijuice Corporation employed Holt as a night watchman to protect its citrus packing plant. Holt was not authorized to drive company vehicles, had no…
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
SEBRING, Justice.
Babijuice Corporation, the defendant below, employed one Holt as a night watchman to protect its citrus packing plant. Holt’s duties required him to stay on the premises and prevent the removal or molestation of defendant’s property. According to the record Holt was not authorized to drive defendant’s motor vehicles, tie did not have a driver’s license, had been refused employment as a truck driver, and was not supposed to drive defendant’s trucks other than when absolutely necessary to move them from one place to another in the parking-area.
One night Holt, without the express or implied permission of the defendant, took one of defendant’s trucks from the parking area and drove from the premises on a personal mission. While traveling down the highway he collided with a motor vehicle in which one Sykes was riding, causing injuries to Sykes from which he died.
The complaint in the instant case was filed by Sykes’ father against Babijuice Corporation to recover damages for the negligence of Holt in operating the motor vehicle owned by the defendant. The answer filed by the defendant denied, among other things, that Holt was acting as the agent for the defendant at the time of the accident or that he had any authority to> use defendant’s motor vehicle on the highway. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Subsequently the verdict was set aside and a directed verdict for the defendant was entered. This appeal is from the final judgment entered upon the directed verdict.
The basic issue for determination is whether under the facts stated the defendant may be held liable in damages for the alleged negligent acts of the nightwatchman Holt.
We find no error in the judgment appealed from. It is plain that Holt was not acting within the scope of his employment when he took the defendant’s truck from the premises. It is plain, moreover, that Holt was not using the motor vehicle at the time of the accident with defendant’s knowledge or consent, express or implied. There is no showing that prior to the accident 'Holt had ever taken a motor vehicle of the defendant from the parking area and operated it on the highway with the knowledge of the defendant, thereby raising any question of agency by acquiescence. After giving full consideration to the records and briefs, we are unable to find any theory upon which recovery in favor of the plaintiff could have been sustained. See Johnson v. Mills, Fla., 37 So. 2d 906.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
HOBSON, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, MATHEWS *and DREW, JJ., concur. TERRELL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard v. Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 103 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…s not held liable because it affirmatively [*246] appeared that the operation of the truck was without the owner’s consent. The emphasis upon consent as an element necessary for liability was again illustrated in Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 65. There the Court held an owner was not liable where a night watchman without permission, expressed or implied, took one of defendant’s trucks from the premises on a personal mission. However where consent has been given and the agent has exceeded h…1 / 2
-
Elmore Ivey v. Nat'l Fisheries, Inc., 215 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…wherein the employer’s permission to use the vehicle extended only to the immediate business premises and the tort occurred outside this boundary. Therefore, that fact served to preclude the employer’s liability. Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 65; Keller v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla. App.1963, 156 So. 2d 775. But, once it has been established that the employee has the employer’s authorization to use the auto, the policy of the law has favored the imposition of liability upon the employ…
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. S. J. G. Corp., 409 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…duty in negligence may exist if a criminal act is sufficiently foreseeable that a reasonable man would realize that the criminal act in conjunction with the person’s negligence will result in a loss. On the other hand, in Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., 63 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1953), the corporate owner was held not liable for damages arising out of the use on the highway of one of its trucks by the night watchman, who had been expressly instructed not to drive the company’s trucks off the premises. The court noted t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Mills, 37 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1948)