CourtCases2010

The shurben plaintiff was an out of town tourist the

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: ion 319 of the Restatement imposes a duty of care upon one “who takes charge of a third person whom he knows or should know to be likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled.” Here, Publix did not “take charge” of Woodlard to the extent necessary to fall within this section. In Schmidt v. HTG, Inc., 961 P.2d 677, 688 (Kan. 1998), the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the law on section 319 and concluded that a state parole officer did not take charge or exercise control over a parolee within the meaning of section 319 so as to gives rise to a duty to control the conduct of a third party to prevent harm to 2The Florida Supreme Court adopted section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Mallory v. O’Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1954). See Mialicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 362 n.14 (Fla. 2002). others. As a civilian employer, Publix exerted far less control over Woodlard than a parole officer, so section 319 is inapplicable here. 95 When this court has recognized a duty to take precautions against the criminal acts of third parties, it has required the existence of a “special relationship.”3 Gross v. Family Servs. Agency, Inc., 716 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), affirmed sub nom. Nova Southeastern Univ., Inc. v. Gross, 758 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2000). In Nova Southeastern, a university assigned an adult student to an off-campus internship site that the university knew was located in a high crime area. The adult student filed suit after she was criminally assaulted in the parking lot of that site. Both this court and the supreme court found that the adult student-university relationship was a special relationship that imposed a duty on the school to act reasonably in providing educational services and programs.4 See Nova Southeastern, 758 So. 2d at 89-90. K.M. relies upon Shurben v. Dollar Rent-ACar, 676 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); however, that case demonstrated a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant that does not exist in this case. The Shurben plaintiff was an out-of-town tourist. The complaint alleged that “1) at the time of [plaintiff’s] trip in early 1992 rental ca...
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