[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: Mallory v. O’Neil, 69 So.2d 313, 315 (Fla. 1954).


First District: Tallahassee Furniture Co. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).


Second District: Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So.2d 435, 438-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).


Third District: Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So.3d 33, 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Bennett v. Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., 570 So.2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Fourth District: Ahern v. Odyssey Re (London) Ltd., 788 So.2d 369, 372 (Fla 4th DCA 2001); Doe v. Evans, 718 So.2d 286, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 814 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2002).


Fifth District: Magill v. Bartlett Towing, Inc., 35 So.3d 1017, 1020-21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Storm v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 866 So.2d 713, 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232 F. App’x. 885 (11th Cir. 2007); Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152, 1162 (11th Cir. 2005).


Southern District: Nicholson v. City of Miami, 2022 WL 17073684, *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2022); Singh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2021 WL 6884873, *9 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2021); BluestarExpo, Inc. v. Enis, 2021 WL 4949249, *13-14 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2021);   Barham v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 556 F.Supp.3d 1318, 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2021). 

Middle District: McKenzie v. United States Tennis Ass'n Inc., No. 6:22-CV-615-PGB-LHP, 2024 WL 3849884, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2024); Love v. Lee Memorial Health Sys., 2022 WL 19653, *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2022); BluestarExpo, Inc. v. Enis, 2021 WL 4949249, *13-14 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2021);S. Y. v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-616-JES-MRM, 2021 WL 2315073, at *13 (M.D. Fla. June 7, 2021).

Northern District: N.R. by Ragan v. Sch. Bd. of Okaloosa Cty., Fla., 418 F. Supp. 3d 957, 995-96 (N.D. Fla. 2019); Casey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1342 (N.D. Fla. 1998).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Negligent Retention

(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); Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2016 WL 6330587, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016).

(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); § 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); 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) Negligent retention claims must be based on a tort recognized under Florida common law. Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 1999); Footstar Corp. v. Doe, 932 So.2d 1272, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (Casanueva, J., specially concurring for a majority of the court); Borenstein v. William Island Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., No. 16-25182-CIV-WILLIAMS, 2019 WL 1406466, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2019).

(9) Conduct within the course and scope of employment cannot provide a basis for negligent supervision or retention claims. Buckler v. Israel, 680 Fed.Appx. 831, 834 (11th Cir. 2017); Belizaire v. City of Miami, 944 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1214 (S.D. Fla. 2013); Sanchez v. Discount Rock & Sand Inc., 84 F.4^th 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2023); Delaurentos v. Peguero, 47 So. 3d 879, 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 1954).

(10) Zone of Foreseeable Risk: “Liability attaches only if the plaintiff is ‘within the zone of foreseeable risks created by the employment’…” McKenzie v. United States Tennis Ass'n Inc., No. 6:22-CV-615-PGB-LHP, 2024 WL 3849884, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2024)(citing Watson v. City of Hialeah, 552 So. 2d 1146, 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

[/MM_Access_Decision]