In July 2022, Kenneth Byndom entered a Waffle House in Kissimmee, Florida, and engaged in a heated argument with employee Kevin Edwards. After a supervisor attempted to de-escalate the situation, Edwards clocked out and left the restaurant. Edwards returned briefly to retrieve a forgotten phone, and upon exiting again, he stabbed Byndom in the face with a waffle pick. Byndom sued Waffle House, asserting claims of premises liability, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The district court granted summary judgment to Waffle House on all counts, finding the assault unforeseeable and outside the scope of employment. Byndom appealed, challenging the dismissal of his claims.
The Eleventh Circuit applied Florida law to review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. First, regarding premises liability, the court explained that a landowner has a duty to protect invitees from criminal attacks only if the attack is reasonably foreseeable. This foreseeability is established by showing either knowledge of a specific assailant's propensity for violence or knowledge of similar criminal acts on the premises. The court found Byndom's evidence insufficient because there was no proof that Edwards had a violent propensity or that similar physical altercations had occurred at that specific restaurant. General complaints or verbal altercations did not satisfy the burden of production for foreseeability of a stabbing. Second, on the vicarious liability claim, the court held that an employer is liable for an employee's intentional tort only if the employee was acting within the scope of employment. The court emphasized that batteries are generally outside the scope of employment unless the employee intended to further the employer's interests. The record showed that Edwards had clocked out and left the restaurant before reentering for a purely personal reason. When he stabbed Byndom, he had 'stepped away' from his employment duties and acted on a personal motive, not to serve Waffle House. Third, the court addressed negligent hiring and retention. For negligent hiring, the court noted that a prior criminal record alone does not create liability; there must be a connection between the prior record and the specific tort. Edwards's 2019 arrest for bringing a firearm to school and a DUI conviction were not sufficiently connected to the foreseeability of a stabbing with a waffle pick. For negligent retention, the court found no evidence that Edwards exhibited any unfitness for work after being hired. Finally, regarding negligent training, the court found that Waffle House had implemented de-escalation policies and training. The court rejected Byndom's argument that the failure to have a specific policy on waffle pick storage was negligent, as there was no evidence that such a policy would have prevented the injury. The court also found that the supervisor's decision to send Edwards outside was consistent with training and did not cause the injury, as the stabbing occurred only after Edwards reentered the restaurant on his own initiative.
The decision affirms the district court's dismissal, leaving Byndom without a civil remedy against Waffle House for the stabbing. It reinforces the legal standard that employers are generally not liable for independent criminal acts of employees that occur after they have left their duties. The ruling clarifies that general prior criminal records do not automatically create a duty to investigate further for specific violent torts unless a direct connection to the specific harm is shown. The case remains closed with no remand instructions.