John Robert Johnson v. Unique Vacations, Inc.
498 F. App'x 892
11th Cir.2012Background
- Johnson and Cantu, Illinois residents, were injured on a Sandals Grande horseback excursion in St. Lucia.
- The excursion was operated by International Pony Club, not a party to the suit; plaintiffs booked through Sandals Grande via Unique Vacations, Inc.
- Plaintiffs signed a receipt stating there is no agency between Sandals Grande Tour Desk and excursion operators; Sandals Grande disclaims responsibility for acts of the operators.
- Upon arrival at the off-site location, plaintiffs signed a waiver stating riders relinquish the right to sue International Pony Club and related parties for injuries and other activities on the beach.
- Plaintiffs sued Unique, Sandals Grande, and Sandals for vicarious liability; Cantu asserted loss of consortium; district court granted defendants’ motion on agency/summary judgment grounds.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding there was no triable agency relationship between defendants and International Pony Club; the related waiver/independent-contractor status supported summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was genuine agency for vicarious liability | Johnson argued agency could be shown by contract/control evidence | Sandals had no control over International Pony Club; no agency existed | No agency; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the district court correctly converted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into summary judgment | Conversion was improper and prejudicial | Conversion was properly explained and parties were given notice and opportunity to respond | Conversion proper; district court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Trustmark Ins. Co. v. ESLU, Inc., 299 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2002) (agency analysis requires control and related factors)
- Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985) (advance notice and procedure when converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting; movant must show absence of genuine issue)
- Whetstone Candy Co. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 351 F.3d 1067 (11th Cir. 2003) (no agency absent ownership/operational control evidence)
- Vermeulen v. Worldwide Holidays, Inc., 922 So.2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (independent contractor framework; degree of employer control factors)
- Harper ex rel. Daley v. Toler, 884 So.2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (agency exists where principal controls means of business)
- Font v. Stanley Steemer Intern., Inc., 849 So.2d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (agency requires more than general contract; control of operations matters)
- Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1971) (loss of consortium is derivative; requires actionable tort)