Vicarious Liability: Holding a Florida Employer Liable for an Employee’s Negligence
Normally, a personal injury claim in Florida requires proof of a defendant’s negligence. There is an exception, however, for what is known as vicarious liability. This refers to the liability of a principal for the negligent acts of their agent.
Vicarious liability often arises in the context of employment. If an employee causes an accident in the course of working for their employer, the victims can seek financial compensation from that employer under vicarious liability. The victim does not have to prove any independent or separate negligent act on the part of the employer, because the employer is vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence.
Fifth District: “Exoneration Rule” Does Not Protect Pizza Hut Owner from Lawsuit
Does vicarious liability still apply if the victim sues but later dismisses the employee from their personal injury case? The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed this question. In this case, Roe v. NPC International, Inc., the plaintiff suffered serious injuries when a Pizza Hut delivery driver struck his bicycle. The plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver as well as the owner of the Pizza Hut (the employer), alleging vicarious liability on the part of the latter.
The day before the trial began, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against the driver, leaving only the vicarious liability claim against the employer. The employer then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that a 2023 Florida Supreme Court decision, Tsuji v. Fleet, barred the plaintiff from proceeding. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment for the employer.
The Tsuji case involved an application of the “exoneration rule.” This rule states that when an employee is exonerated on the merits of a personal injury claim, the employer cannot be held vicariously liable. Put another way, a jury cannot find the employee was not liable but the employer was still somehow vicariously liable for the same accident.
But as the Fifth District explained in the Roe case, the exoneration rule did not apply to this situation. Tsuji addressed a plaintiff who failed to sue an employee before a statutory deadline expired. Here, the plaintiff filed a timely lawsuit against the employee. More to the point, the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal was an “adjudication on the merits,” which is required to trigger the exoneration rule.
The Fifth District therefore reversed the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the employer, noting, “Dismissal of the employee driver from [the plaintiff’s] timely filed suit, whether born of settlement, strategy, or otherwise, does not operate as an adjudication on the merits necessary to exonerate [the employer] from vicarious liability.:
Contact a Pasco County Bicycle Accident Lawyer
Bicycle accidents are often the result of reckless motorists–not just delivery drivers–who are in a rush to get to their destinations. If you, or someone that you love, has been harmed in such a collision, our Pasco County bicycle accident attorney is here to help. Contact the offices of Wendy Doyle-Palumbo, Esq., today at (727) 233-2134 to schedule a consultation. We serve clients in Hudson, New Port Richie, and Pasco County.
Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14532207182652054065