Robin Bodenhamer v. Bay Food Brokerage, Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01859
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UMNIIDTEDDL ES TDAISTTERS IDCITS TORFI FCLTO CROIDUART TAMPA DIVISION

ROBIN BODENHAMER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 8:25-cv-01859-SDM-NHA BAY FOOD BROKERAGE, INC.,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER Alleging common law negligence and other claims, Robin Bodenhamer sues1 (Doc. 52) Bay Food Brokerage, Inc., who moves (Doc. 61) to dismiss the negligence claim. Bodenhamer responds. (Doc. 73) ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT Bodenhamer was an Account Executive of Bay Food, a food brokerage firm operating throughout the southeastern United States. (Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 24-25, 130) On July 16–17, 2023, on behalf of Bay Food, Bodenhamer attended a convention in South Carolina at the Hilton Myrtle Beach Resort. (Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 30, 138) Through- out the evening of July 16, Bodenhamer was harassed by an employee of Harris Tee- ter, another company participating in the convention. (Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 32–35, 141–146)

1 Bodenhamer’s complaint named several other defendants, all of whom have been voluntar- ily dismissed. The harassment culminated later that night when the Harris Teeter employee force- fully raped Bodenhamer on Hilton premises while hotel staff failed to intervene de- spite unmistakable warning signs. (Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 147–174) Bodenhamer was hospital- ized that night and diagnosed with a concussion and other physical injuries and was

later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. (Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 176–180) DISCUSSION To state a claim for negligence, Bodenhamer must allege facts plausibly show- ing that Bay Food owed Bodenhamer a legal duty, that Bay Food breached the duty,

and that the breach caused an injury to Bodenhamer. Honig v. Kornfeld, 339 F.Supp.3d 1323, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2018). The existence of a legal duty is a question of law. McCain c. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992). Generally, no duty exists to prevent a third party’s criminal conduct from causing physical harm to an- other, and an employer is required only to exercise such care to ensure an employee’s

safety from a third party as the circumstances reasonably require. Seaboard Air Line R Co v. Gentry, 46 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 1950); Gross v. Family Servs. Agency, Inc., 716 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). Bay Food did not own, operate, or control the Hilton Myrtle Beach Resort

where the assault occurred. Bay Food did not employ or supervise the perpetrator, an employee of another company. The assault occurred after hours during voluntary, unofficial social activity involving the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Boden- hamer alleges nothing to show that Bay Food created a foreseeable risk to Bodenhamer or that Bay Food could reasonably foresee or control the perpetrator’s conduct. Therefore, Bay Food had no legal duty to protect Bodenhamer from the perpetrator at the convention. CONCLUSION For these reasons and those in Bay Food’s motion, the motion (Doc. 61) to dismiss is GRANTED, and Count VI is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 3, 2025. ALTAD.W Ad dyeleny STEVEND.MERRYDAY □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-