Please brief the case found at page 112 of the 9th edition of our text. Your brief should be one page long ideally, no more than two pages. It is due on Feb 26. If you don’t have that edition, the case can be found at:
•Use this citation:
•2224 So. 3d 1193(Fla.Dist.Ct. App. 2018)
Use the briefing format described in the text or a similar format that includes the following headings:
Issue (or issues)
Fields V. Devereux Foundation, Inc., Case Brief
STYLE OF CASE:
2224 So. 3d 1193 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App. 2018)
Defendant: Devereux Foundation, Inc.,
Florida District Court of Appeal
Fields is the plaintiff, and she is the grandmother of a juvenile by the name D.F. while Devereux Foundation as a social services organization is the defendant. Devereux, as an organization, was hired to enhance visitations with D.F.`s mother. Jamal Plummer, as an employee of Devereux, was tasked with visiting Fields home concerning D.F. visitation, but he failed to produce or show any authorization documentation. This fact inclined Fields to restrict Plummer form taking D.F. Plummer responded by being violent to the point that Fields fell on the door frame in the course of confrontations (Bouchoux, 151). The events led to Field filing a case against the Devereux foundation for assault and battery, negligent hiring and supervision, and deliberate infliction of emotional suffering. The Circuit court ruled in favor of Devereux based on the arguments that the organization was not liable for various torts committed by their employees. Later, Field appealed the case.
Issue (or issues)
The issue was that if a summary judgment can be given in the case of a moving party proclaiming, without more, that it can be found liable for the illegal and illegitimate act of another party.
The answer to this was a party that goes for summary judgment need to give compelling evidence to show there are no materials facts on issues that are perceived to be triable.
The court argued that for a moving party to succeed in a motion for a summary ruling must show evidence indicating that there is no genuine issue of fact. Upon presenting such evidence, then the burden moves to the opposing party that a triable issue exists. In this regard, Devereux foundation argued that it was not guilty for assault and battery since Plummer, their employee allegedly acted outside the scope of his employment contract with the Devereux Foundation. In Florida, the employer would be liable for the acts of their employee in the case their conduct was within the scope of employment. In this case, Plummer batters and assaulted the defendant in the course of taking D.F. for visitation, which is a task that he was hired to conduct (Bouchoux, 151). These facts would have made the jury find Devereux foundation liable, but the court could not favorably establish if the conduct of Plummer was implemented in the course of Plummer’s job performances or if it was fuelled need to achieve Devereux Foundation interests. The summary evidence could not be shifted to Fields as evidence was insufficient on the part of Devereux to prove that it was not liable for battery and assault. The burden on the issue of assault and battery remained on the side of the Devereux Foundation.
The court of appeal reversed the circuit court decision of granting summary judgment on the assault and battery claims. The issue was remanded to the trial court for further court proceedings. All the claims were affirmed in favor of the plaintiff. This ruling means that the Devereux Foundation was found liable since the illegal action of Plummer their employee was perceived emanating from a single entity.
Bouchoux, Deborah E. Legal research and writing for paralegals. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.