Roe v. NPC International, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D189 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 30, 2026).

The plaintiff was on a bicycle when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant employer’s pizza-delivery employee in the course and scope of work. The plaintiff sued both the employee driver and the employer, asserting only vicarious liability against the employer.

On the eve of trial, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the employee driver under Rule 1.420, expressly keeping the vicarious liability claim pending against the employer. The employer then argued that because the employee could no longer be found liable due to the dismissal and the expired statute of limitations) the “exoneration rule” barred vicarious liability, based on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Tsuji v. Fleet. The trial court agreed.

However, the appellate court reversed. It held the exoneration rule requires an adjudication on the merits exonerating the employee, and the first voluntary dismissal under Rule 1.420(a) is without prejudice, and by the language of the Rule, does not operate as an adjudication on the merits. Because the plaintiff timely filed suit and the dismissal was not an adjudication, Tsuji did not apply to insulate the defendant employer from vicarious liability.