Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc.
257 So. 2d 95 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort if the tortious act was committed within the scope of employment, which is a jury question if the act was prompted by a dispute related to the employee's job duties. Separately, an employer may be held directly liable for negligent hiring if it knew or should have known of an employee's dangerous propensities.
Facts:
- Vincent Forster and his wife Lillian were driving on the Airport Expressway.
- Harvey Breines, a driver for Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., was driving a company bus behind the Forsters' vehicle en route to pick up passengers.
- Breines drove the bus aggressively alongside the Forsters' car, forcing it toward the median strip.
- Breines then pulled the bus in front of the Forsters' car and stopped abruptly, forcing Vincent Forster to brake hard to avoid a collision.
- Breines exited the bus, approached the Forsters' car, and jerked open the driver's side door.
- Breines swore at Vincent Forster, stating that no one would delay his schedule, and began pushing him in the face while he was still seated and wearing a seatbelt.
- When Lillian Forster attempted to protect her husband, Breines struck her as well.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent and Lillian Forster sued Red Top Sedan Service, Inc. and its driver, Harvey Breines, in a Florida trial court.
- The Forsters filed an amended complaint alleging assault, battery, and negligent hiring against Red Top.
- The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- During the trial, the Forsters voluntarily dismissed the driver, Breines, from the lawsuit.
- At the conclusion of the Forsters' presentation of evidence, the trial court granted Red Top's motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Red Top.
- The Forsters, as appellants, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer potentially liable for an employee's intentional tort of assault and battery when the assault arose from the employee's frustration with a perceived interference in the performance of his job duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Hendry, J.
Yes. An employer may be liable for an employee's intentional tort when the act is connected to the employment. Here, the driver's belief that the Forsters were delaying him in the performance of his duties created a sufficient connection to his employment to present a question of fact for the jury as to whether he was acting within the scope of his employment. The trial court erred by holding as a matter of law that the driver's actions were entirely personal. Furthermore, the trial court improperly prevented the plaintiffs from presenting evidence on their separate claim that Red Top was negligent in hiring a driver with a known propensity for violence.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that the 'scope of employment' for vicarious liability can extend to intentional torts that are not explicitly authorized by the employer. The key is the nexus between the employee's motivation for the tort and their job duties. By finding a jury question existed, the decision makes it more difficult for employers to obtain a directed verdict in cases where an employee's misconduct, even if extreme, is intertwined with their work. It also affirms the viability of a separate cause of action for negligent hiring, focusing on the employer's own fault in placing an unfit individual in a position to cause harm.
Unlock the full brief for Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc.