Court Opinion

ID: 9964995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:03:45.703847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:52.349815
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 1, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-953
                        Lower Tribunal No. 21-3280
                           ________________

                      Martha Suarez Izquierdo,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

        Presidente Supermarket No. 27, Inc., etc., et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J.
Rebull, Judge.

      Carlos Santisteban, P.A., and Carlos Santisteban Jr.; Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., and Bard D. Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for
appellant.

     Law Offices of Charles M-P George and Charles M-P "Chip" George;
Wadsworth, Margrey & Dixon, LLP and Christopher W. Wadsworth and
Jaime Clark Dixon, for appellee Presidente Supermarket No. 27, Inc.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
      PER CURIAM.

      Affirmed. See Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA

2022) (“Where . . . the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on a

dispositive issue at trial, the moving party need only demonstrate ‘that there

is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’” (footnote

omitted) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986))); Moles

v. Gotti, 433 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“The primary test for

determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is whether

the person being served exercises control over the person performing the

service with respect to the manner in which the work is performed rather than

merely the result to be obtained.”); Vasquez v. United Enters. of Sw. Fla.,

Inc., 811 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“It is a fundamental rule that

the respondeat superior doctrine applies only when the alleged master has

the ability and authority to direct and control the pertinent acts of the

employee.”); Postal Tel. & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 167 So. 358, 360 (Fla. 1936)

(“It is competent for a principal to loan or farm out his servant to a third party,

and if such third party has complete dominion over the servant, and directs

his conduct at all times, he will be held responsible for his derelictions even

though the principal is paying his salary; but this rule does not hold good if

the principal in any way withholds control over him.”).

                                        2