Verdicts by Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
On April 2, 2025, Orlando Senior Partner Matthew Wendler obtained summary judgment in a case involving the alleged negligence of our client, a construction contractor that employed two individuals alleged to have battered the plaintiff while they were out of town for work. Specifically, the incident occurred in a hotel parking lot on a Sunday night, over 24 hours after the employees had stopped working at the construction site, which was nearby. As to our client, Plaintiff sought to recover for the traumatic brain injury he allegedly sustained during the incident under theories of vicarious liability (respondeat superior) (namely, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), negligent training, and negligent supervision. Plaintiff’s wife sought to recover for her alleged loss of consortium.
As to the vicarious-liability claims, the Court agreed with Mr. Wendler’s contention that Plaintiff had no evidence of two of the three elements needed to recover, that is, (1) evidence that the conduct was of the kind the employees were hired to perform and (2) evidence that the conduct occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed. As to the negligent-supervision claim, Plaintiff conceded during the hearing that summary judgment should be entered in our client’s favor. As to the negligent-training claim, the Court agreed with our contention that the duty to train extends only to those tasks as to which an employer would reasonably expect its employees to require instructions; and that, relative to the employees’ construction job, how to conduct oneself in a hotel parking lot while he or she is off duty falls outside the scope of any reasonable expectation.
Paul S. Jones, Partner obtained a ruling in favor of the Defendant on his Motion for Final Summary Judgment on August 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the Honorable Gregory A. Presnell. The Plaintiff, Deborah Canaday, claimed in her Complaint that the Defendant, her employer, violated the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. 2611, by first failing to advise the Plaintiff of her Federally-protected rights; then by denying her leave under said Act; and finally of terminating her by reason of excessive absenteeism, which the Plaintiff claimed should have been accommodated by FMLA leaves of absence. Numerous depositions were taken of the Plaintiff’s supervisors; which evidence showed that contrary to the Plaintiff’s allegations, she was advised of the availability of medical leave under the aforementioned Act. Read More