This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ion 319 of
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.
- Spring '08