Cruz v. Advance Stores Co.
842 F. Supp. 2d 1356
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Cruz sued Advance Stores for battery by Arascue and negligent hiring/supervision/training.
- Arascue allegedly pushed Cruz after being called to return equipment; manager Fred intervened.
- Arascue employed as commercial driver/mobile sales professional; he had no reported prior convictions.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent hiring, supervision, and training; defendant moved for summary judgment.
- Court deemed defendant’s Rule 56.1 statement admitted and granted summary judgment on Counts I and II.
- Response allegedly raised new theories; court noted improper amendment via briefing.
- Court summarized standards for summary judgment and noted lack of genuine factual disputes in plaintiff’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent hiring proximately caused the battery | Cruz relies on employer failure to screen Arascue | No record showing unfitness or negligent hiring | granted summary judgment for defendant on hiring claim |
| Whether negligent supervision proximately caused the battery | Employer failure to supervise | No evidence of notice or failure to act; admissions undermine claim | granted summary judgment for defendant on supervision claim |
| Whether negligent training proximately caused the battery | Defendant inadequately trained Arascue | Evidence shows no negligent training; plaintiff failed to support | granted summary judgment for defendant on training claim |
| Whether Arascue's battery gives rise to liability under respondeat superior (Count II) | Arascue's battery attributable to employer | No vicarious liability theory alleged by Cruz | granted summary judgment for defendant on Count II |
| Whether plaintiff may rely on new theories raised in response to summary judgment | New theories should be considered | New theories not properly pleaded; improper under rule | rejected new theories; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework; movant bears initial burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (unfavorable inferences for non-movant must be reasonable)
- Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604 (11th Cir.1991) (burden-shifting in summary judgment to non-movant)
- Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir.1991) (standard for summary judgment in civil cases)
- Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald and Co., 382 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.2004) (plaintiff may not amend complaint via response to summary judgment)
- Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So.2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (negligent hiring framework under Florida law)
- Gutman v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 707 F.Supp.2d 1327 (S.D. Fla.2010) (negligent training standards in SD Fla.)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.2005) (negligent training/defective program standards)
- In re Andrx Corp., Inc., 296 F.Supp.2d 1356 (S.D. Fla.2003) (courts disallow novel theories in briefing material)