Michael Gabor v. Remington Lodging and Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a/ One Ocean Resort and Spa, and Robert J. Henderson

Jacksonville, Florida personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence theory.



Michael Gabor was a guest at the hotel owned by the defendant, Remington. The co-defendant, Henderson, was employed by Remington as a maintenance worker at the hotel. While the trial testimony as to its cause differed greatly, a physical altercation occurred between Gabor and Henderson on the hotel property that resulted in Gabor being injured.



* * *



A motion for directed verdict, as well as a motion for judgment in accordance with a motion for directed verdict, "tests the sufficiency of the evidence presented." Martinez, 320 So.3d at 879-80. Applying this standard, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to grant Remington a directed verdict. Gabor presented no evidence at trial that any actions taken by either Remington's general manager or its front desk manager were done outside the course and scope of their respective employment, which, as previously indicated, is necessary for the employer to be separately liable for damages for negligent supervision or negligent training. See Acts Ret.-Life Cmtys., 206 So.3d at 117 (providing that a claim of "[n]egligent supervision is simply not the appropriate claim to bring against an employer whose employees are acting within the scope of their duties"); Belizaire v. City of Miami, 944 F.Supp.2d 1204, 1215 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (recognizing that the alleged acts by employees giving rise to liability of the employer for negligent supervision "must occur outside the employees' scope of employment" (citations omitted)).



* * *



Legal issue Can an employer be held separately liable for negligent supervision or training when the employee's actions occur within the scope of employment?

Headnote



TORT LAW. NEGLIGENCE. The case involves an appeal regarding a jury verdict that awarded damages only for past medical expenses in a negligence action, where the plaintiff contested the adequacy of the award, and the defendant cross-appealed the denial of a directed verdict motion concerning negligent supervision and training claims.



EMPLOYMENT LAW. VICARIOUS LIABILITY. The court examined whether an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's actions found to be non-negligent, affirming that no vicarious liability exists if the employee is not negligent.



EMPLOYMENT LAW. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING. The court addressed the requirement that claims for negligent supervision or training against an employer must be based on employee actions that occur outside the course and scope of employment, leading to the reversal of the trial court's decision denying a directed verdict in favor of the employer.

Key Phrases Negligence action. Vicarious liability. Negligent training. Directed verdict. Final judgment.



* * *



MoreLaw was created to help people find experienced lawyers to represent them in the more than 3,144 counties across the United States. Click the link above to see a list of lawyers ready and willing to represent you if you have a legal problem and need help. Call: 918-582-6422 for help.

Reversed and remanded.