Third-Party Liability

Florida Appeals Court Refuses to Hold Corporation Responsible for Actions of a Negligent Subcontractor

Published on: July 8, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida business owners have a responsibility to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe manner for all who enter. This includes not only ensuring that the physical environment is safe but also addressing security concerns adequately. When businesses hire external security services, they may still be held responsible for the actions of those security companies, especially if the premises are not kept secure. Recently, the Florida Court of Appeal addressed a case involving a national fast food chain where a security guard, hired as an independent contractor, shot and killed a plaintiff’s family member without adequate justification.

According to the facts discussed in the recently released appellate opinion, a disturbance at the restaurant led to the involvement of a security guard who a company contracted by the restaurant hired. The guard, unable to manage the situation, ultimately discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s family member. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim, arguing that the larger corporation was liable for the actions of the franchisee and the security contractor. After losing initially at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff appealed the ruling, seeking to hold the larger corporation accountable.

The appellate court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The Court relied on Florida law on vicarious liability and independent contractors in making this decision. Generally, in Florida, a business owner or employer is not held liable for the acts of an independent contractor. This principle includes cases where the contractor fails to uphold the safety standards expected of the business. The appellate court found that the corporation did not breach a non-delegable duty to maintain reasonably safe premises simply because the independent contractor’s guard negligently discharged a firearm. This incident was considered beyond the scope of the corporation’s duty to provide a safe environment for its business invitees.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Personal Injury Summary Judgement Case

Published on: August 31, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a personal injury claim between the Appellants, the plaintiff, and the Appellee, Lawson Industries, Inc., (Lawson). The plaintiff sued Lawson after he sustained injuries when he attempted to unload a shipment of heavy-impact windows and doors that were delivered by Lawson’s employee and placed on the plaintiff’s employer’s forklift. The impact doors in the shipment toppled off the forklift and onto the plaintiff when he removed the windows that were leaning against the impact doors. The court granted Lawson’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

Lawson is a Miami-Dade impact window and door manufacturer. PMYY Leon Corporation, Inc. (PMYY) is the plaintiff’s employer and a local retailer that ordered impact windows and doors from Lawson. The impact doors and windows had been offloaded onto PMYY’s forklift the day prior to the incident by a Lawson’s delivery truck driver. On the day of the delivery, PMYY’s principal assisted the Lawson’s delivery truck driver in moving the shipment from the truck onto the PMYY forklift. During deposition, the delivery truck driver did not recall strapping the doors onto the forklift rack because that was not his job. The delivery truck driver also did not recall whether the forklift operator strapped the load down, but testified that to do so was PMYY’s usual practice. The delivery truck driver left the PMYY premises after the delivery. PMYY’s principal stated during his deposition that he strapped the shipment to the pallet rack on the forklift. After that he stated that he drove the forklift into the PMYY warehouse for overnight storage.

The plaintiff testified at his deposition that on the morning of the incident, he entered the warehouse and began to unload the forklift shipment himself, and at the time observed that there were no straps in place. The plaintiff later testified that he failed to realize that safety strapping was missing until the doors fell on him. During his deposition, the plaintiff stated that once he unloaded the lighter windows from the front of the heavier impact doors, the doors fell forward, causing him injuries. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit against Lawson, asserting one count of negligence, asserting that Lawson improperly loaded the shipment onto PMYY’s forklift, which ultimately led to his injuries.

Filing a Third-Party Personal Injury Lawsuit After a Florida Workplace Accident

Published on: February 1, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law provides workers with benefits if they suffer injuries at work or while in the scope of their employment duties. At first glance, the system appears as a quick and efficient way for Florida employees to obtain benefits for their injuries and return to work. However, the system inherently favors employers because, barring certain exceptions, employees lose their right to bring a common-law personal injury lawsuit against their employer. Exceptions to this rule exist in certain situations, such as if the employer did not maintain appropriate worker’s compensation insurance. Further, an exception applies if the employee suffered injuries because of their employer’s particularly egregious wanton gross negligence or intentional conduct. Finally, workers’ compensation does not protect employers from assaults against their employees.

In many cases, workers’ compensation insurance does not adequately cover all of an employee’s injuries and damages. Although employees may not assert personal injury claims against their employer, they may recover damages from other responsible third-parties. To succeed on a third-party claim, plaintiffs must be able to prove that they had a work-related accident, the third-party owed them a duty of care, they breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered injuries because of the work-related incident.

For example, a Florida news report recently described a tragic accident at a St. Petersburg Home Depot. A delivery driver suffered fatal injuries when construction materials fell on him at the store. The driver was working as a third-party carrier for a building material company. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal entity that ensures safe and healthy working conditions, reported that the incident is under investigation. Additionally, Home Depot commented that they were working with authorities to investigate the accident.

Navigating the “Obvious Danger” Doctrine in Florida Premises Liability Claims

Published on: January 27, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Whether you work in an office building or in a manufacturing plant, you go to work every day with a reasonable expectation that your workplace will be safe. In the event that something is unsafe or potentially dangerous, employers will typically mark or block off the space. For example, wet floor signs indicate when a corridor may be slippery, and construction tape can block off areas undergoing renovation. If you are injured while on the job because of a workplace hazard in Florida, you may be eligible to file a claim for compensation.

In a recent District Court of Appeal of Florida decision, the court considered the obvious danger doctrine in a premises liability claim. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured when he stepped into an uncovered drain on a construction site. At various times, the drain that injured the plaintiff was covered and uncovered, depending on the phase of construction. When the plaintiff was last at the site, the door he stepped through before being injured by the drain was marked off and closed with tape. On the day of the accident, however, the door was not blocked off by tape. Because of especially bright conditions and a mixture of sunlight and dust from the construction, the plaintiff was blinded temporarily when he opened the door to a landing and stepped into the drain. Following the accident, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, arguing that the defendant breached its duty to maintain safe premises. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, concluding that they had no duty to warn the plaintiff of “an open and obvious drain” and that the plaintiff should have taken steps to avoid the accident.

On appeal, the court reversed and sided with the plaintiff. According to the appellate court, the lower court was incorrect when it held that the defendant was not liable because the drain was open and obvious. Although the drain may have been obviously uncovered, the defendant failed to dispute whether its dangerous condition was obvious. Further, the court reasoned that even if the drain’s danger was open and obvious, the defendant still had a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises for its employees.

Florida Premises Liability Cases Involving Allegations of a Victim’s Criminal Conduct

Published on: December 14, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent Florida District Court of Appeal opinion, the court considered whether a defendant was civilly liable for a death that occurred on its property. The case is unique because it involved allegations that the deceased accident victim was involved in criminal activity shortly before she died.

The plaintiff in the case filed a claim against the defendant lodge after her mother was fatally shot in a parking lot owned and operated by the lodge. Following a brawl between some individuals who were part of the decedent’s group and some members of the shooter’s group inside the lodge, the two groups were removed to the parking lot, where a second fight began. Evidence showed that the decedent participated in the parking lot fight and struck a pregnant female who was part of the shooter’s group. After the fight in the parking lot ended, the shooter’s group left the parking lot, and the decedent’s group got into their vehicle, which was parked in the defendant’s parking lot. Before the decedent’s group could pull out of the parking lot, the shooter’s group returned to the lot and opened fire on their vehicle. The decedent was fatally shot while sitting in the front seat.

At the lower court, the defendant argued that they should not be held liable for the decedent’s death because the decedent knowingly struck a pregnant female on their property, committing a crime. Because Florida law prohibits an accident victim from recovering for their injuries if they were hurt while engaging in a crime, the defendant argued that they were not responsible for the decedent’s death. The trial court disagreed and argued that the defense did not apply because the decedent was not engaged in a felony when she was shot.

Exceptions to Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Immunity

Published on: November 25, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under Florida law, employers with four or more employees must purchase workers’ compensation insurance. Additionally, construction businesses must provide this insurance for every employee. This coverage is essential to both business owners and employees, because it covers various expenses related to workplace injuries. The insurance is designed to cover injuries that an employee suffered on-the-job. It typically covers medical expenses, recovery costs, missed wages, and funeral and burial costs. Employers may obtain private or state insurance or self-insure their employees. Employees do not share in the cost of the insurance premium. However, in exchange for the coverage, in most cases, the law prevents Florida employees from suing their employers to cover expenses from their workplace injuries.

Fault is not a consideration in workers’ compensation claims; however, employers must still keep their workplaces safe. In some situations, employers do not meet this burden, and as a result, their workers may suffer exposure to dangerous conditions. In many cases, workers’ compensation does not adequately cover the extent of the employee’s damages. For instance, although the insurance covers medical bills and lost wages, it does not compensate for pain and suffering. The bar on recovery can cause serious financial hardship to employees.

There are certain exceptions to workers’ compensation laws that may allow victims to recover additional damages. Employees may file a lawsuit against employers who did not carry workers’ compensation insurance or failed to process a claim in a timely manner. Further, employees may file lawsuits for workplace injuries against negligent third parties. For example, if an employee is driving a company vehicle for work and suffers injuries in a car accident, the employee may file a lawsuit against the negligent driver. Further, employees can file a lawsuit if an employer denies a workers’ compensation claim in bad faith.

Court Addresses Foreseeable Zone of Risk in Florida Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Published on: May 8, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a Florida appellate court issued an opinion in a consolidated appeal arising from the tragic mass murders at the Pulse nightclub. The facts indicate that the shooter entered the nightclub shooting and injuring fifty-three patrons and killing forty-nine others. The survivors and decedents’ representatives filed a lawsuit against the company that hired the shooter to work as a “Custom Protection Officer.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached their duty to engage in an appropriate investigation of their prospective employees before hiring them, and this negligence created a foreseeable zone of risk to the general public.

In support of their claim, they provided evidence that the defendant knew that the man was dismissed from a corrections officer training class for making statements suggesting that he would bring a gun to class. Despite this knowledge, the defendant hired the man for a position that required him to obtain a Class G firearm license. The license requires a psychological evaluation, and the defendants submitted a fraudulent one on behalf of the man.

While the man was working for the company, the Sheriff’s Department demanded that the defendant terminate the man because he continually threatened his colleagues and claimed to be associated with various terrorist groups. About two weeks before the shooting, the man tried to purchase ammunition from a licensed gun dealer, but he was turned away. A week later, he brought his Class G license to a different retailer and purchased the guns that he used for the mass shooting. The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants owed them a legal duty because they were in the foreseeable zone of risk that the defendants created.

Establishing Employer Liability in Florida Car Accident Cases

Published on: June 5, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a Florida car accident is caused by someone who was working at the time of the accident, anyone injured as a result of the employee’s negligence may be able to pursue a claim against both the employee and the employer through the doctrine of vicarious liability. The doctrine of vicarious liability allows accident victims to hold one party liable for the negligent acts of another party, even if the employer was not alleged to be directly at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries.

In the case of employer liability, a Florida accident victim must be able to establish that the employee’s actions that are the basis of the plaintiff’s claim were: 1.) within the scope of their employment, and 2.) during the course of employment and to further a purpose or interest of the employer. If these elements are met, the plaintiff can name the at-fault party as well as their employer as defendants, regardless of whether the employer had any reason to know that the employee presented a danger to others.

Florida accident victims can also pursue a claim of primary negligence against an at-fault party’s employer based on the employer’s own negligence. Unlike claims alleging vicarious liability, these claims require the plaintiff to establish that an employer was somehow negligent. Examples of primary liability claims against an employer are negligent hiring and negligent retention claims. A recent case illustrates one way an accident victim can pursue a claim against an at-fault driver’s employer.

Can an Employee Hold a Co-Worker Responsible in a Florida Workplace Accident Case?

Published on: April 18, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured on the job, they can typically file a claim for compensation based on the injuries they sustained. There are two types of claims, Florida workers’ compensation claims and Florida personal injury claims. A workers’ compensation claim does not require an employee establish another party was at fault for their injuries. However, Florida workers’ compensation claims provide only for the recovery of medical expenses/disability benefits, meaning that an injured employee cannot recover for the pain and suffering the accident caused.

Alternatively, Florida personal injury cases allow accident victims to more fully recover for their injuries, including for non-economic losses. However, a plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant was negligent to recover these losses. In many Florida workplace accidents, the first question that arises is which type of claim should an injured employee pursue. In reality, it is less a question of “should” and more a question of “can.”

One way of thinking about this question is to consider who was at fault for the accident. In short, if an accident is caused by the negligence of the employer or the employee, an employee’s only remedy may be through a Florida workers’ compensation claim. This is because under Florida statutes section 440.11, while a qualifying employer is responsible for an employee’s injuries, a workers’ compensation claim is usually the injured employee’s “sole remedy.” This means that an employee whose injuries are the result of a covered accident may only be able to pursue a workers’ compensation claim. Section 440.11 extends this “sole remedy” provision to situations where an employee’s injuries are caused by a co-worker’s negligence.

Holding a Florida Employer Responsible for the Negligence of an Employee

Published on: March 14, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An important consideration in any Florida personal injury case is whether a plaintiff will be able to collect on a judgment if they are successful at trial. For example, the financial and emotional expense of taking a case to trial against a defendant who does not have sufficient assets to cover a judgment may not make sense. Thus, it is essential that Florida personal injury victims name all potentially liable parties.

In many cases, this means naming the employer of the at-fault party as a defendant. Generally speaking, employers have more substantial assets than employees, and they may also have higher-limit insurance policies making collecting on a judgment much less of a headache for a successful plaintiff.

In Florida, an employer may be liable for the negligent acts of an employee, even if the employer was not negligent in causing the accident. This is referred to as vicarious liability. Of course, employers cannot be named in every Florida personal injury accident. In Florida, to establish that an employer is liable for the negligent acts of an employee, the plaintiff must show that the at-fault employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and that he was “engaged in his master’s business.” A recent state appellate decision illustrates how courts view vicarious liability claims.