Reina v. Metropolitan Dade County
285 So. 2d 648 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort when the act is purely personal, motivated by the employee's own animosity, and not committed within the scope of employment or to further the employer's interests. The heightened duty of care owed by a common carrier to a passenger terminates once the passenger has safely alighted from the vehicle.
Facts:
- Ricardo Reina boarded a bus operated by James Koch, an employee of Metropolitan Dade County.
- Reina placed a 25-cent fare in the box, and Koch informed him the fare was 30 cents, leading to an exchange of words.
- After traveling several blocks, Reina signaled to get off, but Koch initially did not stop, eventually stopping the bus in the center of the street.
- Reina exited the bus and, once he reached the sidewalk, made an obscene gesture towards Koch.
- In response to the gesture, Koch stopped the bus, disembarked, ran after Reina, and proceeded to kick and beat him.
- As a result of the beating, Reina required hospitalization.
Procedural Posture:
- Ricardo Reina sued both the bus driver, James Koch, and his employer, Metropolitan Dade County, in a Florida trial court.
- At the close of evidence at trial, both Reina and the County moved for directed verdicts.
- The trial court denied Reina's motion but granted the County's motion for a directed verdict.
- Final judgment was entered in favor of Metropolitan Dade County.
- Reina, as the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, with Metropolitan Dade County as the appellee.
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 vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an assault and battery committed by its employee on a former passenger who had already safely alighted from the vehicle and was on the sidewalk?
Opinions:
Majority (Per Curiam) - Per Curiam
No, an employer is not vicariously liable under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the bus driver, James Koch, was not acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted Ricardo Reina. The assault was a purely personal act of vengeance in response to an obscene gesture. Unlike cases where an employee's actions are meant to further the employer's interest (e.g., removing an obstruction), Koch's attack occurred after Reina had safely alighted from the bus and was no longer impeding its progress. Therefore, the special common carrier-passenger relationship had terminated, and Koch's actions were a clear departure from his employment duties, severing the County's liability under respondeat superior.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the boundaries of an employer's vicarious liability for the intentional torts of its employees. It clarifies that a mere 'but-for' connection to the employment—that the dispute originated during the business interaction—is insufficient to establish liability. The court draws a distinct line: once the employee's action becomes a purely personal vendetta, disconnected from any purpose of serving the employer, the doctrine of respondeat superior no longer applies. This case is significant for defining the temporal and motivational limits of the 'scope of employment' and the termination point of a common carrier's heightened duty of care.
