Case Name: SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York Corp., Appellant, v. Joseph WILLIAMS and Mary Williams, as guardians and next best friends of Joey Williams, a minor, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-03-31
Citations: 877 So. 2d 5
Docket Number: No. 3D02-1458
Parties: SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York Corp., Appellant, v. Joseph WILLIAMS and Mary Williams, as guardians and next best friends of Joey Williams, a minor, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN, J., and BARKDULL, THOMAS, JR., Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 877
Pages: 5–7

Head Matter:
SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York Corp., Appellant, v. Joseph WILLIAMS and Mary Williams, as guardians and next best friends of Joey Williams, a minor, Appellees.
No. 3D02-1458.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 31, 2004.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 14, 2004.
Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Adler and Newman and Rosemary B. Wilder, Coral Gables; Arnstein & Lehr and Alfredo Marquez-Sterling, Esq., for appellant.
Ginsberg & Schwartz and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami; Goldberg & Vova, P.A. and Judd G. Rosen, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN, J., and BARKDULL, THOMAS, JR., Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting the plaintiffs motion for new trial, and from a partial summary judgment which held that the appellant, Sears Roebuck and Co., was vicariously liable for the acts of its co-defendant, Diamond Exteriors, Inc.
Finding no clear abuse of discretion, we affirm the order for new trial. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490, 497-98 (Fla.1999) ("When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion."). See also Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669, 673 (Fla.1959) (holding that the granting of a motion for new trial should not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion).
We, however, reverse the summary judgment holding the appellants vicariously hable. The question of agency and/or apparent agency is generally a question of fact which must be determined by a jury. Robbins v. Hess, 659 So.2d 424, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). This case is no different. Where, as here, the record reflects that different inferences can be made as to an agency relationship, summary judgment is improper. See Robbins, id. (finding that the question of apparent agency could be resolved by summary judgment only in cases where the evidence is capable of just one determination (citing Kobel v. Schlosser, 614 So.2d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993))).
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for new trial.
GREEN, J., and BARKDULL, THOMAS H., JR., Senior Judge, concur.