Nettles v. Thornton, I--240
| Decision Date | 25 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. I--240,I--240 |
| Parties | William David NETTLES, Appellant, v. Florine Lindsey THORNTON, Lewis Katz and Frieda M. Katz, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the appellant's amended complaint, with prejudice, as to the appellees-defendants Lewis Katz and Frieda M. Katz.
The second amended complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants, Lewis and Frieda M. Katz, the appellees herein, were the owners and operators of a lounge in Jacksonville where drinks are served. That the defendant, Florine Lindsey Thornton, who did not appeal, was a barmaid or waitress employed by the appellees in the operation of said lounge. It was further alleged that in the course of her employment, the defendant Thornton assisted in closing the bar by clearing off the tables, cleaning the ashtrays and in transferring customers' drinks from glass containers to paper cups, so the customers could take them with them if they desired. That on the night in question, at or about 1:30 A.M. the plaintiff appellant was a customer in said lounge and that the defendant, Thornton:
The foregoing statement contains the only allegations pertaining to the alleged assault. We do not feel that the mere alleging that an action of an employee 'was in the course of her employment,' necessarily makes it so. The pleader should allege sufficient facts from which such fact could be determined. The fact that the complaint charges that the assault was Malicious and Without provocation, and without alleging that such assault was necessary on the part of the defendant Thornton to carry out her duties, or that she was instructed by her employers to assault the appellant, we think renders the complaint deficient in the necessary allegations to state a cause of action against the employer-defendants and that the trial court was correct in so holding.
We distinguish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Zazo
...Co. v. Hill, 67 F.2d 487 (5th Cir.1933); DeJesus v. Jefferson Stores, Inc., 383 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Nettles v. Thornton, 198 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). The only aspect of Rodriguez's job which the appellee even contends may have been implicated by the stabbing was his asserted ......
-
Friedman v. Mutual Broadcasting System, 79-1217
...see: Reece v. Ebersbach, 152 Fla. 763, 9 So.2d 805 (1942); City of Miami v. Simpson, 172 So.2d 435 (Fla.1965); Nettles v. Thornton, 198 So.2d 44 (Fla.1st DCA 1967); Jones v. City of Hialeah, 368 So.2d 398 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The Supreme Court, in considering the issue of liability of the mas......
-
Everett v. Florida Institute of Technology
...134 Fla. 284, 183 So. 825 (Fla.1938); S.H. Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471, 180 So. 757 (Fla.1938).5 Compare Nettles v. Thornton, 198 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) (additional allegations required where a waitress made an unprovoked attack on ...
-
Lay v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.
...facts from which it can be inferred that the acts were performed in the scope and course of Kremer's employment. Nettles v. Thornton, 198 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) is distinguishable because in that case there were no factual allegations showing any connection between the barmaid's duty ......