350 So.3d 465
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- On November 9, 2019, Ibarra was struck inside a Ross store when an on-site shopping cart pushed by employee Maria Rosario hit her.
- Rosario was a Ross employee who entered the store before her scheduled shift, wore work clothing and an employee badge, and was not scheduled to start until 6:00 PM; she clocked in at 5:58 PM.
- Ibarra sued Ross (May 1, 2020) alleging respondeat superior liability for Rosario’s conduct.
- Ross moved for summary judgment, asserting Rosario was off duty when the incident occurred.
- Ibarra opposed, pointing to Rosario’s uniform, badge, and a full cart as evidence she was acting for Ross; the trial court granted final summary judgment for Ross.
- This appeal challenged entry of summary judgment; the appellate court reviewed de novo under the post-May 1, 2021 summary-judgment standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross is liable under respondeat superior for Rosario’s pushing the cart | Ibarra: Rosario was acting as a Ross employee (uniform, badge, full cart) so Ross is vicariously liable | Ross: Rosario was off duty (not scheduled, clocked in after the incident); thus not acting within scope | Affirmed: no genuine dispute of material fact; Rosario was not acting within scope and Ross not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. P. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2020) (explains summary-judgment standard under the amended rule)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for when evidence creates a genuine issue for trial)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (a party’s version may be disregarded if blatantly contradicted by the record)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment’s role in isolating unsupported claims)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (mere metaphysical doubt is insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Iglesia Cristiana La Casa Del Senor, Inc. v. L.M., 783 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (sets elements for conduct to be within scope of employment)
- Sussman v. Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc., 557 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (tests whether employee conduct was authorized or to serve employer)
- Orozco v. McCormick 105, LLC, 276 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (summary-judgment orders reviewed de novo)