Maule Industries, Inc. v. Messana
| Decision Date | 13 January 1953 |
| Parties | MAULE INDUSTRIES, Inc. v. MESSANA. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellant.
Kass & Fuller, Miami, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment based upon a verdict of a jury awarding damages to the appellee because of the alleged negligent pumping operations of the appellant which resulted in the flooding of lands which the appellant had leased to the appellee causing the destruction of growing crops.
This cause has been before this Court before. See Messana v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla., 50 So.2d 874. In that case this Court held that the amended complaint was sufficient and reversed the order of the lower court sustaining the motion to dismiss.
It is unnecessary to quote again the amended complaint. After the case was remanded to the lower court, the defendant, appellant here, filed an answer offering defenses of: general issue; that their pumping operation was not the proximate cause but that heavy rainfall was the sole proximate cause; assumption of risk; and, that the person doing the pumping was an independent contractor.
There were some conflicts in the testimony relating to all of the defenses, including that of independent contractor. The defense of independent contractor presents a mixed question of law and fact.
The contract with the so-called independent contractor was verbal. The appellant furnished no machinery and no men to do this work. It is the contention of the appellant that it had no supervision or control over the same. The contract was paid on a 'yard' basis for removing muck and the pumping operation was a necessary part of the job of removing muck. The appellant in its brief with reference to the independent contractor says, 'So the only question, in this connection, is whether or not the defendant should be held responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of the 'admitted' Independent Contractor.' We do not find any place in the record that the contractor was admitted to be such an independent contractor that the appellant was not liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the contractor.
The superintendent of the appellant and the man who negotiated the deal with the appellee in renting the land upon which the appellee had his growing crops knew the purpose for which the land was rented. They had knowledge that the lands upon which the appellee had growing crops was being flooded. The superintendent contended that the land was being flooded by rainfall and the appellee contended that it was being flooded by the pumping operations. The superintendent went on the property at the request of the appellee and saw the dangerous condition existing during the progress of the work. The appellee requested the superintendent to have the work stopped but the superintendent refused to do so. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. U.S.
...United States, 875 F.2d 1577 (11th Cir. 1989); Emelwon, Inc. v. United States, 391 F.2d 9 (5th Cir.1968) (citing Maule Industries, Inc. v. Messana, 62 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1953); Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So.2d 376 (1941); Peairs v. Florida Publishing Co., 132 So.2d 56......
-
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. U.S.
...v. Andrews, 310 So.2d 424 (Fla.Ct.App.1975); New Homes of Pensacola, Inc. v. Mayne, 169 So.2d 345 (Fla.Ct.App.1964).47 Maule Industries v. Messana, 62 So.2d 737 (Fla.1953); Peairs v. Florida Publishing Co., 132 So.2d 561 (Fla.Ct.App.1961).48 See Lawrence v. Eastern Air Lines, 81 So.2d 632 (......
-
McGarry v. United States
...contractor it may incur liability through its failure to halt the operation or otherwise remove the danger. Maule Industries, Inc. v. Messana, 62 So.2d 737 (Fla.1953); Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So.2d 376 (1941); Peairs v. Florida Publishing Co., 132 So.2d 561 "Sec......
-
Windham v. Florida Dept. of Transp.
...activity or condition created by the independent contractor and fails to prevent injuries to third persons, Maule Industries, Inc. v. Messana, 62 So.2d 737 (Fla.1953); Maldonado v. Jack M. Berry Grove Corp., 351 So.2d 967 (Fla.1977). Still another area of potential liability, known as the "......