RIDDLE ET AL.
v.
AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. ET AL.
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.
Anna Lou Riddle sued Aero Mayflower Transit Co. for an alleged willful assault committed by an employee in the plaintiff's home during a furniture moving job. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendant, holding that a corporation cannot be held liable for an employee's criminal assault committed outside the scope of employment, absent notice that the employee was dangerous, and that a statement of intent to re-employ does not ratify the tort.
A corporation cannot be held liable for an employee's criminal assault committed outside the scope of employment without evidence that the corporation knew or had notice that the employee was dangerous. Moreover, a statement of intent to re-employ an employee does not constitute ratification of a criminal act committed outside the scope of the servant's authority.
“The employee was engaged by the common carrier to assist in carrying on that business. He was not engaged for the purpose of committing any assault and the commission of an assault was in no way connected with the business of the common carrier.”
Establishes that the assault was outside the scope of employment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee of Aero Mayflower Transit Co., a common carrier specializing in moving household goods, committed an alleged willful assault on Anna Lou R…
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
MATHEWS, Justice.
Suit was filed because of an alleged willful assault committed by an employee upon the appellant, Anna Lou Riddle, while the employee was in the home of appellants for the purpose of moving household furniture and effects.
The business of the corporation was that of a common carrier in moving household goods. The employee was engaged by the common carrier to assist in carrying on that business. He was not engaged for the purpose of committing any assault and the commission of an assault was in no way connected with the business of the common carrier. This is not a case where the corporation knew that the employee was a dangerous person or was chargeable with notice or knowledge of any fact that he was a dangerous person and might attempt to commit such an assault. To hold the corporation liable in such a case as this without some knowledge or notice of some kind that the employee was a dangerous individual would require an exploration into the field of intangibles and the adoption of some method not yet devised of determining the unknown and unusual desires and inclinations of the employee. The case of Chaney v. Frigidaire Corporation, 5 cir., 31 F. 2d 977, 978, has correctly stated the law on this question. It is further alleged that the corporation is liable because an agent, employee or servant of the corporation stated under oath in open court, in a criminal action, with full knowledge of the testimony against the employee, that he would re-employ him, and this constituted a ratification of the act of the employee. In the case of Chaney v. Frigidaire Corporation, supra, the Court said:
“ * * * Appellee’s failure to discharge the salesman is not enough to show that it ratified or adopted the assault and battery, which it is alleged was committed by its salesman upon appellant. Williams v. Pullman Palace Car Co., supra [40 La.Ann. 417, 4 So. 85]; 21 R.C.L. 919. Indeed, it seems extravagant to suggest that appellee, by any action it might take, could ratify or adopt such conduct. There is no allegation that appellee sought to assert any right or claim based upon the tort of its salesman. At all events, if it did not believe the salesman was guilty, although it was mistaken in that view, it had the right to retain him in its service.”
With reference to ratification of an act of an employee which is outside the scope of his employment in the case of Mallory v. O’Neil, Fla., 69 So. 2d 313, 314, this Court said:
“ * * * The rule is general that a criminal act committed outside the scope of the servant’s authority cannot be ratified and the allegations here are not sufficient to show ratification, if in fact any exceptions to the rule exist. Even if defendant secured a lawyer to represent his servant and retained the servant in his employment after serving his jail sentence, that could not be said to ratify the servant’s criminal act.”
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…her [*439] action such as investigating, discharge, or reassignment. See, e.g., McCrink v. City of New York, 296 N.Y. 99, 71 N.E. 2d 419 (1947); Fernelius v. Pierce, 22 Cal.2d 226, 138 P. 2d 12 (1943); see also, Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 73 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1954). Once liability began to be imposed on employers for acts of their employees outside the scope of employment, the courts were faced with the necessity of finding some rational basis for limiting the boundaries of that liability; otherwis…
-
Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…purposes of this summary judgment motion, we must review it as a whole to determine whether a viable cause of action is alleged by Nazareth against Herndon. . Cf. Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1954). . Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 73 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1954); Somatra Lines, Ltd. v. Rayne Int'l, Inc., 419 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Williams v. Feather Sound, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1374 (Fla.1981); Wayne v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 316 So. 2d 581 (Fl…
-
Williams v. Feather Sound, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…2d 173 (Tex.Civ. App.1979). . E. g., Bradley v. Stevens, 329 Mich. 556, 46 N.W. 2d 382 (1951); Stevens v. Lankard, 31 A.D.2d 602, 297 N.Y.S.2d 686 (1968). . Mallory v. O’Neil, 69 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla.1954). . Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., 73 So. 2d 71, 71 (Fla.1954). .On the other hand, we reject Miss Williams’ contention that, as a matter of law, Feather Sound had to check with law enforcement agencies about Carter’s criminal record. While this may have been prudent, we think the better rule is…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1954)
- Chaney v. Frigidaire Corp., 31 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1929)