Kitroser v. Hurt
85 So. 3d 1084
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Castro Lara was killed in a Florida accident involving Airgas Carbonic, Inc. employee Dickey operating a company truck.
- Kitroser sued Airgas and Dickey, then added five Airgas employees personally as defendants for negligent supervision and training in Florida.
- Airgas employees moved to quash service and dismiss, arguing the corporate shield doctrine barred personal jurisdiction in Florida.
- The trial court found Florida’s long-arm statute, § 48.193, supported personal jurisdiction over the employees; the district court reversed and certified a public-importance question.
- The court applied Venetian Salami to determine whether sufficient jurisdictional facts were pled, focusing on whether the employees acted personally in Florida.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that, when nonresident individuals commit torts in Florida, the corporate shield does not bar personal jurisdiction once they are personally present and engage in tortious acts in Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the corporate shield bar personal jurisdiction for nonresident employees who commit torts in Florida? | Kitroser argues shield precludes in-state personal jurisdiction regardless of in-state torts. | Airgas contends acts were corporate, outside Florida, and shield personal jurisdiction. | No; shield does not bar jurisdiction when acts occur in Florida. |
| Are Florida personal-jurisdiction facts sufficient where employees were personally in Florida and engaged in negligent acts? | Plaintiff alleges each employee personally engaged in training or supervision in Florida. | Defendants rely on lack of personal Florida acts or benefit to individual. | Yes; personal acts in Florida satisfy § 48.193. |
| Does the first step of Venetian Salami require proof of jurisdictional facts under § 48.193 when allegations are uncontested? | Allegations show acts in Florida; threshold met for long-arm jurisdiction. | Without personal-benefit to individuals, jurisdiction should fail at first step. | Yes; first step satisfied, enabling evaluation of minimum contacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-step long-arm analysis; first step jurisdictional facts, second minimum contacts)
- Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1993) (corporate officers may not be haled solely by virtue of position; personal acts required)
- Eller v. Allen, 623 So.2d 545 (Fla.5th DCA 1993) (no personal Florida acts; jurisdiction lacking)
- Radiniffe v. Gyves, 902 So.2d 968 (Fla.4th DCA 2005) (questions scope of corporate shield; not controlling here)
- Snibbe v. Napoleonic Society of America, 682 So.2d 568 (Fla.2d DCA 1996) (discusses limits of corporate shield doctrine)
- Carter v. Estate of Rambo, 925 So.2d 353 (Fla.5th DCA 2006) (limits on corporate shield; personal acts critical)
- Marine Midland Bank v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899 (2d Cir.1981) (federal fiduciary shield rationale)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts and due process in jurisdiction)