CourtCases2010

Affirmed polen and stevenson jj concur not final until

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: nd ordered him off the work site did not owe a duty to users of public highways who might later be injured by the employee). Without any special relationship, this case falls under the general rule of “section 314 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1964), which provides that the fact that a person realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another’s aid or protection does not of itself impose a duty to take such action.” Garrison Retirement Home Corp. v. Hancock, 484 So. 2d 1257, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In the absence of specific threats, courts in other 96 states have not imposed a duty to warn third parties of the criminal backgrounds of persons released from custody. See Eric J. v. Betty M., 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 549 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (providing that family members of paroled sex offender had no duty to warn girlfriend of their family member’s prior criminal history, such that girlfriend could not bring suit for boyfriend’s sexual assault of her minor child); Thompson v. County of Alameda, 614 P.2d 728, 734 (Cal. 1980) (court held that no duty placed on a county for failing to warn parents of neighborhood children of juvenile offender released on temporary leave to his mother’s custody, even where county knew of offender’s “dangerous and violent propensities regarding young children”); Apple v. Tracy, 613 N.E.2d 928 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993) (holding that private citizen who had child sex offender as a guest in his home after the offender’s release from prison did not have a duty to warn neighborhood parents and the local police about the offender’s presence). The facts of this case did not impose a duty on Publix with respect to its employee’s away from- work childcare decisions. An employer does not owe a duty to persons who are injured by its employees while the employees are off duty, not then acting for the employer’s benefit, 5We reject the argument that Woodlard was acting for Publix’s benefit while babysitting: The benefit to- 5 - not on th...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online