About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/relagcy0125 and id is 1 raw text is: AGENCY CHAPTER 7. LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL TO THIRD PERSON; TORTS TOPIC 2. LIABILITY FOR AUTHORIZED CONDUCT OR CONDUCT INCIDENTAL THERETO TITLE A. IN GENERAL § 217. Principal or Agent Has Immunities or Privileges Fla.App.2015. Com. (b) quot. in case quot. in ftn. Parents, on behalf of child who suffered a brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation during his birth, brought a medical-malpractice action under a theory of vicariously liability against, among others, state-university hospital that employed the doctors that delivered the child. The division of administrative hearings found that defendant was not entitled to immunity, because its employees failed to give notice required by defendant's participation in Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Act plan. The trial court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed in part, holding that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability because its employees, who were participants in the plan, failed to comply with the plan's notice provision and waived their right to immunity. Citing Restatement of Agency § 217, the court noted that if the employees had been entitled to immunity, the issue of whether defendant could have invoked its agents' personal-immunity defense would have been a complicated question to answer, as jurisdictions across the country were divided on that issue. University of Miami v. Ruiz ex rel. Ruiz, 164 So.3d 758, 768. TITLE D. CONDUCT WITHIN APPARENT AUTHORITY OR EMPLOYMENT § 267. Reliance upon Care or Skill of Apparent Agent or Servant Ga.App.2015. Cit. in case cit. in ftn. Mother, as guardian and next friend of three-year-old child, brought a negligence action against franchisee and franchisor of a daycare center, alleging that child was injured when he collided with a metal gate in the play area of the daycare center. The trial court denied franchisor's motion for summary judgment. Reversing on interlocutory appeal, this court held that franchisor was not vicariously liable for franchisee's alleged negligence under the doctrine of apparent agency. While mother maintained that all of the signage and documentation at the daycare center contained franchisor's name and trademarks and that staff at the daycare center wore shirts bearing franchisor's logo, it was not enough that franchisee represented itself as franchisor's agent or that mother believed that an agency relationship existed between franchisor and franchisee; in order to establish apparent agency under Restatement of Agency § 267, mother had to establish that franchisor held franchisee out as its agent. Kids R Kids Intern., Inc. v. Cope 769 S.E.2d 616, 619. A ulE For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most