Alford v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 06 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | Nos. H--332,I--38,H--333 and I--39,s. H--332 |
| Citation | 201 So.2d 489 |
| Parties | Carl ALFORD, Appellant, v. Donald J. MEYER and Wilford J. Meyer, d/b/a Meyer Brothers, and American Oil Company, Appellees. F. J. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Donald J. MEYER and Wilford J. Meyer, d/b/a Meyer Brothers, and American Oil Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert Orseck, of Nichols, Gaither, Reckham, Colson, Spence & Hicks, and Podhurst & Orseck, Miami, for appellants.
Gerald Bard Tjoflat, of Mahoney, Hadlow, Chambers & Adams, and Robert C. Gobelman of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict for the defendants in a common law negligence action.
This cause was initially before this court by way of Cases Nos. H--332 and H--333 filed prior to rendition of the judgment appealed from. New and timely notices of appeal, Cases Nos. I--38 and I--39, were filed together with appropriate motions requesting use of the records of H--332 and H--333 in this properly filed appeal. We hereby dismiss H--332 and H--333 and proceed to review the judgments appealed from in Cases Nos. I--38 and I--39.
The separate complaints, resulting from the same incident, were consolidated for trial, and the cases are now consolidated for appeal.
An examination of the record discloses that both plaintiffs, Alford and Williams, were injured while in the course of their employment with defendants, Meyer Brothers. The injuries were sustained by a fall from a scaffold while painting gasoline storage tanks belonging to defendant, American Oil Company.
The plaintiffs contend that the employer by providing an unsafe scaffold failed in his duty to exercise the standard of care required under the circumstances involved. In attempting to prove this lack of due care, the plaintiffs offered as evidence a Florida Industrial Commission pamphlet containing the 'Regulations for Construction and Use of Scaffolds,' adopted pursuant to the safety provisions of Section 440.56, Florida Statutes. The proffer for the purpose of proving that the scaffold was not constructed in accordance with the standards of the regulations was rejected by the court.
The reasoning of the court was that the regulations were not admissible as to Meyer Brothers who, by silence, had failed to accept the law and, therefore, were not employers within the contemplation of Section 440.56(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which reads in part:
'Every employer, as defined in the workmen's compensation law, including employers who have elected not to accept the workmen's compensation law, shall furnish employment which shall be safe * * *.'
In other words, the trial court reasoned that only employers who had affirmatively elected to accept or reject the Workmen's Compensation Law were subject to or needed to abide by the safety rules promulgated under the statute.
The appellees rely on a 1954 federal decision, Baker v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 212 F.2d 130 (5th Circuit), which held that an employer who had rejected the Workmen's Compensation Law was not subject to the safety rules adopted by the Industrial Commission.
At the time of the Baker case, the pertinent part of Section 440.56(1) read as follows:
'Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be safe * * *.'
However, at the time the instant case arose, this section had been modified by Chapter 61--428, Laws of Florida, to apply the safety standards to every employer 'as defined in the * * * law, including employers who have elected not to accept the * * * law.' The title to said act states that its purpose was to '* * * extend the coverage of the safety law.' It is quite obvious that the Legislature was not content with the results produced by the Baker case.
In the case at bar, the trial court considered the modification of the section as to employers who elected not to accept the law and ruled on the necessity of an affirmative act. However, a proper construction requires the interpretation of the effect of the modification as to 'every employer, as defined in the workmen's compensation law,' together with Section 440.02(4)(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which states:
'(4) The term 'employer' means * * * every person carrying on any employment, * * *.
'(5) The term 'person' means individual, partnership, association or corporation, * * *.'
The legislative intent as to the class of persons sought to be protected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gracey v. Eaker
...generated a viable cause of action in tort. See, e.g., Lewis v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 426, 173 So. 150, 152 (1937); Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are: the existence of a fiduciary duty, and the breach of that duty ......
-
Kohl v. Kohl
...given activity.' ” Dusine v. Golden Shores Convalescent Ctr., Inc., 249 So.2d 40, 41–42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (quoting Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) ); see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 401.9. Such statutory violation evidence thus will not overhaul the negligence......
-
Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril
...courts of Florida have long recognized that the violation of a statute may be utilized as evidence of negligence. In Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), the court The rationale supporting the admission of a statute, ordinance, or administrative rule or regulation as prima fa......
-
Golden Villa Nursing Home, Inc. v. Smith
...Golden Villa cites Dusine v. Golden Shores Convalescent Center, Inc., 249 So.2d 40 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971), and Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967), for the proposition that the duty a nursing home owes its residents is "determinable" from the appropriate statutes. The Dusi......