Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 33362
Decision Date | 21 December 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 33362,33362 |
Citation | 170 So.2d 293 |
Parties | FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Gerald W. PRICE, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Norman C. Roettger, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Michael K. Davis of Watson, Hubert & Sousley, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
We are petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in this case, reported in 159 So.2d 654 (Fla.App.2d, 1963).
The plaintiff, Respondent here, instituted an action at law in the Circuit Court against the defendant Florida Power and Light Company, the Petitioner here, to recover damages for injuries sustained while he was working as an employee of Harlan Electric Company. The latter, an electrical contracting company, entered into a contract with the defendant to construct an electrical distribution system in a new subdivision, which would be connected with defendant's electrical transmission system. Plaintiff alleged that while on a power pole a fellow employee of Harlan Electric Company on another pole several feet away negligently allowed a 'jumper' wire to come close enough to cause an electrical arc which energized the wire on which plaintiff was working on the first pole, causing plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff alleged the defendant knew of the danger inherent to work done on or around wires charged with high voltage electricity; that defendant knew pole No. 2 carried wires so energized and owed to plaintiff a high degree of care to provide safe working conditions; and that defendant allowed Harlan's employees to energize the new distribution system without proper supervision and control by defendant. The Circuit Court dismissed plaintiff's first amended complaint and final judgment was entered against plaintiff.
On appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, plaintiff, as appellant, contended his amended complaint stated a cause of action showing: (1) negligence on the part of defendant; (2) the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of Harlan and its other employees under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and (3) the defendant was liable for injuries caused by the negligence of the independent contractor Harlan and its other employees because the work being performed was inherently dangerous.
The District Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff's contention that the complaint alleged facts indicating negligence on the part of the defendant, stating:
It agreed, however, that the amended complaint stated a cause of action against the defendant because the complaint alleged defendant's electrical power is a dangerous instrumentality or agency and that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of the defendant's independent contractor or the latter's employees. The decision of reversal is predicated upon a line of cases in our state beginning with Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 1920, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629, 16 A.L.R. 255.
The District Court of Appeal also agrees with plaintiff
The above quotations appear to us to be in direct conflict with Gulf Refining Co. v. Wilkinson, 1927, 94 Fla. 664, 114 So. 503, where this Court quoted from 25 C.J. 197, as follows:
Inasmuch as the District Court of Appeal specifically concluded plaintiff's amended complaint contained 'no allegations of fact showing that the plaintiff was without actual or constructive knowledge of the danger existing because of the work of his fellow employees on pole No. 2' its reversal conflicts with Florida Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So.2d 406 (Fla.1953), in which it is stated:
'* * * 'A person who is having work done on his premises by an independent contractor, and has actual or constructive knowledge of latent or potential dangers on the premises, owes a duty to give warning of, or use ordinary care to furnish protection against, such dangers to employees of the contractor and subcontractor who are without actual or constructive notice of the dangers.' * * *'
In Vanlandingham v. Florida Power & Light Co., 154 Fla. 628, 18 So.2d 678, and Florida Power & Light Co. v. Brinson (Fla.), 67 So.2d 407, it is held that a power company is not an insurer but is only required to exercise that degree of care commensurate with the circumstances of the occasion.
Even if some of the conflicting language in the above decisions may be dicta, it is sufficiently conflicting with the decision under review to warrant or assuming certiorari jurisdiction.
We pass to the merits. It is our view that the District Court of Appeal failed to take into consideration exceptions to the doctrines upon which it predicates defendant's liability.
We make special reference to cases where the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor and sued the owner of the dangerous instrumentality or agency, or sued one for whom inherently...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vertentes v. Barletta Co., Inc.
...395, 403, 403 P.2d 330 (1965); Jackson v. Petit Jean Elec. Co-op., 270 Ark. 506, 510, 606 S.W.2d 66 (1980); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So.2d 293, 298 (Fla.1964); Conover v. Northern States Power Co., 313 N.W.2d 397, 404 (Minn.1981); Donch v. Delta Inspection Servs. Inc., 165 N.......
-
Cochran v. U.S.
...Inc. v. United States, supra, 875 F.2d at 1583 (citing Emelwon, Inc. v. United States, supra, 391 F.2d at 11); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So.2d 293 (Fla.1964). The second theory of Florida law imposes a duty upon an employer who discovers a dangerous situation created by its in......
-
McGarry v. United States
...is liable for the breach of his own `nondelegable duty' to take precautions against harm to third parties. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So.2d 293 (Fla.1964), articulates the extent of danger required to bring the non-delegable duty into existence as `inherently or intrinsically d......
-
Herrell v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co. Llc, 99,451.
...1 Ariz.App. 395, 403 P.2d 330 [1965]; Jackson v. Petit Jean Electric Co-op., 270 Ark. 506, 606 S.W.2d 66 [1980]; Florida Power and Light Co. v. Price, 170 So.2d 293 [Fla.1964]; Pearson v. Harris, 449 So.2d 339 [Fla.Dist.App.1984]; Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc., 113 Idaho 374, 744 P.2d 1......