4D09-4685-Hurt v. Kitroser

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Fourth District Court of Appeal » 2010 » 4D09-4685-Hurt v. Kitroser

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 4D09-4685.op.sc.dis

Case Date: 12/08/2010

Plaintiff: 4D09-4685-Hurt

Defendant: Kitroser

Preview:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2010

ROBERT HURT, MICHAEL WEIS, KENNETH BECK, PERRY BROCK and RANDY MOORE, Appellants, v. MITCHELL I. KITROSER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RHINA M. CASTRO LARA, BENIGNO RODRIGUEZ, Individually, GLORIA RODRIGUEZ, Individually, and FELICITA LARA, Individually, Appellees. No. 4D09-4685 [December 8, 2010] STEVENSON, J. Appellants, all individuals and non-residents of Florida, challenge an order of the trial court denying their motions to quash service and to dismiss the wrongful death complaint filed against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. Th e complaint alleges that appellants were negligent while in Florida conducting business o n behalf of their corporate employer. Because the so-called "corporate shield doctrine" is applicable, we must conclude that no personal jurisdiction exists over appellants and reverse. The relevant jurisdictional facts are contained in the complaint and the uncontested affidavits. A commercial truck driven b y Airgas Carbonic, Inc., employee Dale Dickey struck a car driven by Rhina Castro Lara, who was killed. Castro Lara's estate and survivors filed a wrongful death action. The third amended complaint (hereinafter the "complaint") named as defendants Airgas Carbonic, Inc., a foreign corporation; Dickey--the truck's driver; and the appellants, non-resident Airgas employees Robert Hurt--the vice-president of distribution for Airgas's Bartow, Florida, plant, Perry Brock--the Director of Safety for Airgas, Randy Moore--the safety manager for Airgas, and Michael Weiss and Kenneth Beck--managers of the Bartow facility. The complaint alleged that each of these men was responsible for training, or overseeing the training, of Airgas drivers, including Dickey; that each had personally trained Dickey and had been physically present at the Bartow facility when they did so; and that each had reviewed Dickey's performance

while physically present in Bartow, Florida. The complaint asserted negligent training, supervision and retention claims against appellants. The appellants each filed similar motions seeking to quash service of process and to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Florida's corporate shield doctrine precluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant sued personally, but whose contacts with the forum were initiated and performed for the benefit of his employer. The appellants filed affidavits in support of their motions, with each asserting that they resided in a foreign state, i.e., either Georgia or Texas; that they were at all material times acting within the scope of their employment and as agents of Airgas; that they worked at Airgas's Georgia site; that they did not own, rent or lease any property in Florida, have any bank accounts in Florida, pay any Florida taxes, or hold any licenses issued by the state of Florida; that they had not conducted any personal business in Florida; and that they were not in Florida at the time of the accident. The appellants did not dispute that they had been physically present in Florida in connection with their obligations to train Airgas drivers, including Dickey, as alleged in the complaint. The plaintiffs opposed the motions insisting that the corporate shield doctrine did not apply because the appellants committed the alleged negligent acts while physically present in Florida. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motions to quash service and to dismiss; this appeal followed. We review de novo the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Golant v. German Shepherd Dog Club of Am., Inc., 26 So. 3d 60, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We believe it to be fairly clear that, unless precluded by the application of the corporate shield doctrine, the allegations of the complaint establish personal jurisdiction for each of the individual appellants in Florida's courts. See

Download 4D09-4685.op.sc.dis.pdf