[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. The defendant employer becomes aware, or should have become aware, of problems with an employee that indicates his unfitness;
2. The defendant employer owes a duty to plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury or damage;
3. The defendant employer breaches its duty by failing to take further action, such as investigation, discharge, or reassignment;
4. Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to plaintiff; and
5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. The defendant employer becomes aware, or should have become aware, of problems with an employee that indicates his unfitness;
2. The defendant employer owes a duty to plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury or damage;
3. The defendant employer breaches its duty by failing to take further action, such as investigation, discharge, or reassignment;
4. Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to plaintiff; and
5. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Malicki v. Doe, 814 So.2d 347, 362 (Fla. 2002).


First District: Lee v. Harper, 328 So.3d 384, 386-88 (Fla.1st DCA 2021); Roberson v. Duval Cty. Sch. Bd., 618 So.2d 360, 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).


Second District: Ankers v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Pasco Cty., 406 So.2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).


Third District: School Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty. v. Martinez-Oller, 167 So.3d 451, 453 (Fla 3d DCA 2015); Iglesia Cristiana La Casa Del Senor, Inc. v. L.M., 783 So.2d 353, 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).


Fourth District: Acts Ret.-Life Communities Inc. v. Estate of Zimmer, 206 So.3d 112, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Broward Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Ruiz, 493 So.2d 474, 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).


Fifth District: Goss v. Human Servs. Assocs., 79 So.3d 127, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Hardy, 907 So.2d 655, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Erickson v. Manatee Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 824 F. App’x 861, 865 (11th Cir. 2020); Saphir ex. rel. Saphir v. Broward Cty. Pub. Schs., 744 F. App’x. 634, 641(11th Cir. 2018).


Southern District: Doe v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, LTD, 744 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1309-10 (S.D. Fla. 2024); In re Mednax Servs., Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 2022 WL 1468057, *24 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2022); Baldoza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 20-22761-CIV, 2021 WL 243676, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2021); Borenstein v. Williams Island Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., No. 16-25182-CIV, 2019 WL 1406466, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2019).


Middle District: Johnson v. Florida Dep't of Juvenile Justice, No. 8:24-CV-2195-WFJ-NHA, 2025 WL 638613, at *4-5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2025); Love v. Lee Memorial Health Sys., 2022 WL 19653, *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2022); Groover v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commissioners, 460 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2020); Reillo v. Alternate Health USA, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-109-J-34JBT, 2020 WL 6701625, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2020).


Northern District: N.P. by Perillo v. Sch. Bd. of Okaloosa Cty., Fla., No. 3:18CV453-MCR-HTC, 2019 WL 4774037, at *17 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2019); Rudd v. Tatum, No. 5:11–cv–373–RS–CJK, 2013 WL 4017333, at *18 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 627 F. App’x. 761 (2015).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Negligent Supervision

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(a) (2023) (two years); Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a) (2022)(four years for claims accruing prior to March 24, 2023).

(3) Defendant lacked constructive or actual knowledge that the defendant employee was unfit. M.V. v. Gulf Ridge Council Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 529 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Speaks v. City of Lakeland, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1229 (M.D. Fla. 2004).

(4) Plaintiff’s contributory negligence serves to diminish the recovery of damages through principles of comparative negligence, by apportioning defendant’s degree of negligence against that of the plaintiff. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431, 436 (Fla. 1973); Cutler v. St. John’s United Methodist Church of Edwardsville, Ill., 489 So.2d 123, 123-24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); § 768.81, Fla. Stat.

(5) “[T]ort liability in Florida is premised on pure comparative negligence, which means that a jury should apportion fault between the plaintiff, defendant, and any third parties alleged to have been at fault, and render an award based on a defendant’s percentage of fault in causing an injury.” Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052, 1061 n.1 (Fla. 2007); Fla. Stat. § 768.81(2).  For negligence claims that accrue on or after March 24, 2023, Florida will apply a comparative negligence standard, which bars a plaintiff from recovery if the plaintiff is more than fifty (50) percent at fault. § 768.81(6), Fla. Stat. (2023).

(6) Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an intervening, superseding cause. Golden Gate Homes, LC v. Levey, 59 So.3d 275, 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)l; Townsend v. W. Side Dodge Inc., 642 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So 2d 1197 (Fla. 1995); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 440, 441 (1965).

(7) Consent is a defense to negligence claims. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892 (1965).

(8) Conduct within the scope of employment cannot provide a basis for negligent supervision or retention claims. See Buckler v. Israel, 680 F. App’x 831, 834 (11th Cir. 2017); City of Boynton Beach v. Weiss, 120 So. 3d 606, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

[/MM_Access_Decision]