Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Const. Co., Inc., AS-415
| Decision Date | 06 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AS-415,AS-415 |
| Citation | 448 So.2d 1132 |
| Parties | Frank Randall MANN, Appellant, v. PENSACOLA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Kahn, Jr., and Robert J. Mayes of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Pensacola, for appellant.
Charles L. Cetti of Cetti, McGraw, Bearman & Eddins, Pensacola, for appellees.
Plaintiff, Frank Randall Mann, injured at work on June 6, 1981, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the allegedly negligent owner of a crane who loaned the crane to plaintiff's employer. At issue is whether the owner is immune from tort liability under Florida's common law doctrine announced in Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So.2d 422 (Fla.1966), and adhered to in Iglesia v. Floran, 394 So.2d 994 (Fla.1981), or if not, whether the owner was negligent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the crane owner. Unfortunately, the rule of law applied was incorrect and we reverse.
The following facts were gleaned from the pleadings and depositions. James Murphy, Mann's employer and owner of Commercial Coatings, Inc., arranged with Robert Harris, owner of Pensacola Concrete Construction Company, Inc., to borrow Pensacola Concrete's crane. Harris agreed to loan Murphy the crane, free of charge, as a favor.
The following weekend, on the day of the accident, Donald Moore, another of Murphy's employees, decided that the use of the crane was necessary to expedite a particular phase of construction. Apparently without asking permission of Murphy, who was not present at the construction site that day, Moore and a co-employee drove to Pensacola Concrete's yard to pick up the crane. Moore approached the crane, noticed it had the keys in it, and drove it back to the construction site without any instructions from, or conversation with, an agent or employee of Pensacola Concrete.
When Moore returned to the job driving the crane, Mann signaled to him and jumped onto the hook and ball at the end of the crane's cable. Moore was under the impression from Mann's smiling that he wanted to have some fun, so Moore extended the crane's boom, and raised Mann several feet from the ground. The cable snapped, causing Mann to fall and thereby to suffer severe injury.
According to Murphy, when he inspected the crane after the accident he observed no defects. Rather, it was his opinion that Moore had extended the boom of the crane too far without allowing slack on the cable, thereby causing the cable to break from tension.
Harris stated that although he was not present when Moore picked up the crane, he was under the impression that one of his company employees brought the crane over to the construction site, and instructed Murphy's employee on the operation of the crane, as that was how it had been handled when Murphy borrowed the crane in the past. Harris maintained that the crane and the cable were always inspected before the crane was operated.
By amended complaint, Mann sued Pensacola Concrete and his co-employee Moore for damages, alleging only that Pensacola Concrete owned the crane which was operated, with its permission and consent, by Moore who acted with "gross negligence and reckless disregard to the rights of" Mann. 1
Pensacola Concrete answered the amended complaint by admitting that it had loaned the crane, free of charge, to Commercial Coatings, Inc., but denying that it had given permission to Donald Moore to operate the crane. Pensacola Concrete presumed that if any permission was given to Moore, it was given by Moore's employer, Murphy. It further denied exercising control over the operation of the crane at any time material to Mann's injury. Pensacola...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott & Jobalia Const. Co., Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc. for Use and Benefit of U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
...Manufacturing Co. v. Storey, 489 So.2d 780, 782 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 500 So.2d 546 (Fla.1986); Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Constr. Co., Inc. (Mann I ) 448 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 461 So.2d 115 (Fla.1984), appeal after remand, (Mann II ) 527 So.2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev......
-
Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Const. Co., Inc.
...v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 538 So.2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), based on express and direct conflict with Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Construction Co., Inc., 448 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 461 So.2d 115 (Fla.1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. While working on a co......
-
Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Const. Co., Inc., 87-126
...raised on the cross-appeal, noting at the outset that this case is before us for the second time. See Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Construction Co., Inc., 448 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. den., 461 So.2d 115 (Fla.1984) (Mann I ). In its cross-appeal, Pensacola Concrete, citing and rel......
-
Commercial Coatings of Northwest Florida, Inc. v. Pensacola Concrete Const. Co., Inc.
...and procedural posture. It is the direct result of the First District Court of Appeal's initial decision in Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Construction Co., 448 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 461 So.2d 115 (Fla.1984), holding that workers' compensation immunity did not apply to Pensa......