Sussman v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 89-1005

Decision Date16 January 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-1005,89-1005
Citation557 So.2d 74
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D210 William SUSSMAN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

L. Barry Keyfetz, Miami, for appellant.

Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler, and John Bond Atkinson, Miami, and Douglas E. Ede, Miami Shores, and Wendy F. Lumish, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

Sussman, who was injured when struck by a car driven by an employee of Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee. We affirm.

Elizabeth Paraiso, a fitness instructor at a health spa owned by Florida East Coast Properties, received a telephone call from the spa manager asking her to stop off at a supermarket on the way to work and pick up a birthday cake for the assistant manager's birthday party. Paraiso departed for work earlier than usual, and deviated five blocks from her normal route in order to purchase the cake. Before returning to her regular route, Paraiso lost control of the car when she reached over to prevent the cake from falling off the seat. The car left the road and struck the plaintiff, William Sussman, as he sat on a bench waiting for a bus.

Sussman sued Florida East Coast Properties on a theory of vicarious liability, alleging that although employers are not generally liable for the negligence of employees on their way to work, this case falls under the special errand exception to the coming and going rule. Florida East Coast Properties responded with evidence that Paraiso was not acting within the scope of the employer's business when the accident occurred. The trial court agreed that the employer was not liable.

Sussman's chief contention on appeal is that because it was undisputed that the employee was within the course and scope of her employment, as the term is used in the workers' compensation statute, the trial court was inconsistent when it found that the employee was not acting within the scope of the employer's business for the purpose of imposing vicarious liability for injuries caused to a third person. We disagree.

Different considerations dictate the results in analyzing whether an employer is legally responsible for the conduct of an employee which results in harm to the employee or a fellow employee, and conduct of an employee which results in harm to third persons. Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The policy goal of the workers' compensation statute is to provide prompt and limited compensation benefits for job-related injuries and to facilitate the employee's speedy return to employment without regard for fault. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Akin, 533 So.2d 829, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (Anstead, J. concurring specially), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 988 (Fla.1989). Those policy considerations are not at work in cases where third parties make claims against the employer under principles of respondeat superior for injuries caused by the employee. Instead, a narrower analysis is undertaken which relies strictly on tort principles. Id. See also Anderson v. Falcon Drilling Co., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 26 May 2006
    ...1028, 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding trial court improperly applied respondeat superior); see also Sussman v. Fla. E. Coast Properties, Inc., 557 So.2d 74, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (noting in a workers' compensation case the different policy concerns implicated by imposing employer liabilit......
  • Omnipol, A.S. v. Multinational Def. Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 3 May 2022
    ...the work to be performed, and (3) is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. Sussman v. Fla. E. Coast Props. , Inc ., 557 So. 2d 74, 75–76 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1990).According to Omnipol and Elmex's amended complaint, Strother, Siedel, and Bristol were all civilian c......
  • Ayers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 29 July 1996
    ...of his employment; and 3) must have been activated at least in part by a desire to serve the master. Sussman v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 557 So.2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 143 (Fla.1990). The Eleventh Circuit has decided the issue of whether an employee wa......
  • Martinez v. Pavex Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 22 March 2006
    ...to serve the master. Ayers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 941 F.Supp. 1163, 1168 (M.D.Fla.1996) (citing Sussman v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 557 So.2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 143 N. Perez's assault and battery claim is premised on the February 1998 physical alt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT