See damico v christie 518 ne2d 896 901 02 ny 1987

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: rs bore a license plate designation which knowledgeable individuals recognized as rental cars 2) several carjackings of rental cars had occurred in certain areas of Miami and that Dollar was aware of those instances; and 3) Dollar knewthat [the plaintiff] was an arriving British tourist without specific information as to the existenceof the special license plate designation or the crimes directed at tourists.” Id. at 468. The trial court entered dismissal after finding that those allegations did not give rise to a legal duty. The third district reversed, holding that a legal duty did exist under section 302B, particularly in light of defendant’s “superior knowledge.” Id. Shurben did not specifically mention the special relationship doctrine. However, we explained in Family Services that Shurben “demonstrated that Florida courts have been especially sensitive in finding the requisite special relationship to exist.” Family Services, 716 So. 2d at 339. The special relationship in Shurben was the customer-rental agency relationship. The special relationship test is a limitation on the scope of one’s liability for the intentional acts of third parties. The Restatement and Florida law set parameters on employers’ liability for the acts of their employees. As the second district has explained, once liability began to be imposed on employers for acts of their employees outside the scope of employment, the courts were faced with the necessity of finding some rational basis for limiting the boundaries of that liability; otherwise, an employer would be an absolute guarantor and strictly liable for any acts committed by his employee against any person under any circumstances. Such unrestricted liability would be an intolerable and unfair burden on employers. Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So. 2d 435, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). To expand employers’ liability in this area would have “broad ramifications,” requiring employers to monitor their employee relationships apart from work, in areas such as commuting and socializing. See D’Amico v. Christie , 518 N.E.2d 896, 901-02 (N.Y. 1987) (holding that employer who fired inebriated employee a...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online