Valeo v. East Coast Furniture Co., 95 So. 3d 921

Plaintiff sues East Coast Furniture Co. and its employee for negligent hiring, negligent retention, and vicarious liability over a padlock incident in which the employee struck plaintiff in the eye.
Employee swung a padlock after perceiving plaintiff as a potential robber while both were in a parking lot following a truck collision.
Employee testified he believed plaintiff tried to rob him of cash; plaintiff denies being aggressor.
Circuit court granted summary judgment on negligent hiring, negligent retention, and vicarious liability claims.
Appellate review is de novo; court analyzes duty boundaries for negligent hiring/retention and scope/course of employment for vicarious liability.
Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for reinstatement of the vicarious liability claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty in negligent hiring/retention	Magill nexus suffices for duty owed to plaintiff.	No duty; plaintiff not within foreseeable zone of risk.	Duty not owed; no duty for negligent hiring/retention
Vicarious liability scope	Evidence shows act within course of employment to further defendant’s interests.	Padlock battery generally outside scope; insufficient to impose liability.	Existence of genuine issue on scope/course; liability may attach

Magill v. Bartlett Towing, Inc., 35 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (negligent hiring/retention require foreseeability, not strict liability for off-duty dangerous acts)
Tallahassee Furniture Co. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (customer-employer nexus can establish duty when contact is direct consequence of employment)
Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (battery generally outside scope, but may be vicariously liable if in course of employment to further employer)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 96 So.3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (existence of legal duty is de novo; appellate review presumed for duties)