Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Robelo v. United Consumers Club, Inc.
Citations: 555 So. 2d 395; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2706; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6439; 1989 WL 139497Docket: No. 88-788
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 21, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
Jose and Nubia Robelo appeal the final summary judgment granted to United Consumers Club, Incorporated, and United Consumers Franchise Corporation (collectively UCC) in their wrongful death lawsuit following a car accident that killed their son. The incident involved Elizabeth Pistone, who was driving a van owned by ARCA Corporation, a franchise of UCC, when she collided with Javier Robelo. The Robelos sued UCC, ARCA, and Elizabeth Pistone for damages. The court evaluated whether Elizabeth was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident to determine UCC’s liability. The principle of vicarious liability holds that an employer is liable for the tortious acts of an employee only if the employee is acting within the scope of their employment. The court noted that an employer is generally not liable for an employee's actions while commuting unless the employee is on a special errand for the employer. In this case, Elizabeth was not on a special errand; she was simply driving to the office on an irregular, as-needed basis, and was not required to be available at all times. The court also highlighted that just because ARCA owned the van does not automatically impose liability on UCC. The nature of the van's use—partially for personal purposes—was significant in determining liability. Ultimately, the trial court correctly ruled in favor of UCC, affirming that there was no basis for vicarious liability as Elizabeth was not acting within the scope of her employment during the incident. The lawsuit against ARCA and Elizabeth Pistone remains pending. The court declined to apply precedent from Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool as it did not fit the circumstances of this case.