El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 76-903
| Decision Date | 07 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-903,76-903 |
| Citation | 345 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | Annalee EL SHORAFA and Waleed El Shorafa, her husband, Appellants, v. Sherburn RUPRECHT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David B. King of Law Offices of Peed & King, Orlando, for appellants.
Richard W. Bates, Orlando, for Air Flow Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.
This appeal involves the applicability of the rule which exonerates a contractor from liability for negligence for injuries to third parties occurring after a contractor has completed his work and turned the project over to an owner who accepts the work.
In Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.2d 462 (Fla.1959), the Supreme Court of Florida considered the respective liability of an owner and contractor for injuries to a third person for negligence of the contractor in the construction of the improvement. The court held that, if the offending defect was latent and unknown to the owner, the contractor remained liable, even after the project was completed and accepted by the owner. The rationale of that holding is that the contractor's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. The Slavin court held, however, that if the defect were patent or if the owner learned of it and did not rectify the condition then the owner's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury rendering the owner liable and exonerating the contractor.
Appellant urges this court to depart from 'the anachronstic' holding of Slavin because it was decided eighteen years ago, and 'the modern trend' is to equate the liability of contractors with that of manufacturers in products liability cases. However, while conceding the persuasiveness of appellant's argument, we do not perceive it to be our function to attempt a departure from rules announced by the Supreme Court of Florida, though they be several decades old. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). In addition, the holding of the Slavin case has been followed, or at least recognized, in a number of more recent cases, such as Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 205 So.2d 291 (Fla.1968); Green Springs, Inc. v. Calvera, 239 So.2d 264 (Fla.1970); Hutchings v. Harry, 242 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As recently as June 1976, the First District Court of Appeal stated in Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So.2d 298, 299-300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976):
'When an owner accepts work from a contractor, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Norton Const., Inc.
...contractor, and it is the owner's failure to perform his duty to repair that is the proximate cause of the injury. El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla.App.1977); Tipton, 356 P.2d at 49; Leininger v. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co., 17 Utah 2d 37, 404 P.2d 33, 37 3. Strict Liability In th......
-
Hiatt v. Brown
...but fails to remedy it, his conduct is an intervening cause which acts to exonerate the architect from liability. 2 E. L. Shorafa v. Ruprecht, (1977) Fla.App., 345 So.2d 763; Strakos v. Gehring, (1962) Tex., 360 S.W.2d 787; Leininger v. Stearns-Roger Manufacturing Co., (1965) 17 Utah 2d 37,......
-
Easterday v. Masiello
...denied, 441 So.2d 632 (Fla.1983); Conley v. Coral Ridge Properties, Inc., 396 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So.2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Thus, the issue is whether we will recede from Petitioner correctly points out that tort law has significantly changed sin......
-
Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. v. Greenfield, 81-1980
...when the employer's liability arises from the contractor's negligent performance of inherently dangerous tasks. El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So.2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Bialkowicz v. Pan American Condominium No. 3, Inc., 215 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 751 (Fla.1......