Valeriani v. Davis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valeriani v. Davis

147 So. 2d 337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 11, 1962

DocketNo. 62-207

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 2d 337 (Valeriani v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valeriani v. Davis, 147 So. 2d 337 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for damages for an alleged assault, brought against a truck driver and a partnership and a corporation as to which it was alleged one or the other was his employer, summary judgment was entered for the partnership and the corporation. The plaintiff appealed and seeks reversal of the summary judgment rendered in favor of the partnership. There were triable issues relating to the liability of the partnership for the alleged assault by its employed driver which could not be resolved on motion for summary judgment, including whether or not an unprovoked assault was made upon the plaintiff, and whether through knowledge of propensities of the driver or in view of the nature of his duties the defendant partnership could be deemed reasonably to have anticipated that its truck driver might commit such an intentional tort. See Dieas v. Associates Loan Co., Fla.1957, 99 So.2d 279; Fields v. Sanders, 29 Cal.2d 834, 180 P.2d 684, 172 A.L.R. 525 (1947); Restatement (Second), Agency § 245 (1958). The summary judgment entered on the motion of the defendant partnership consisting of Paul Marks, Herman Marks, Eugene Marks and Stanley Marks, doing business under the firm name and style of Marks Brothers Construction Company, is hereby reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this action for damages for an alleged assault, brought against a truck driver and a partnership and a corporation as to which it was alleged one or the other was his employer, summary judgment was entered for the partnership and the corporation. The plaintiff appealed and seeks reversal of the summary judgment rendered in favor of the partnership. There were triable issues relating to the liability of the partnership for the alleged assault by its employed driver which could not be resolved on motion for summary judgment, including whether or not an unprovoked assault was made upon the plaintiff, and whether through knowledge of propensities of the driver or in view of the nature of his duties the defendant partnership could be deemed reasonably to have anticipated that its truck driver might commit such an intentional tort. See Dieas v. Associates Loan Co., Fla.1957, 99 So.2d 279; Fields v. Sanders, 29 Cal.2d 834, 180 P.2d 684, 172 A.L.R. 525 (1947); Restatement (Second), Agency § 245 (1958). The summary judgment entered on the motion of the defendant partnership consisting of Paul Marks, Herman Marks, Eugene Marks and Stanley Marks, doing business under the firm name and style of Marks Brothers Construction Company, is hereby reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 2d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valeriani-v-davis-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack