Slack v. Acousti Engineering Co. of Fla., 1660
| Decision Date | 24 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1660,1660 |
| Citation | 122 So.2d 574 |
| Parties | Ezra L. SLACK, Appellant, v. ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George C. Winn, Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellant.
Billy L. Rowe, Mann, Harrison, Mann & Rowe, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
The appellant, as plaintiff in the lower court, filed a complaint against the appellee-defendant, an independent subcontractor under plaintiff's employer, seeking damages for injuries received as a result of falling through roof decking furnished and installed by the defendant. The roof decking, known as Insulrock, was being installed in sheet form, 36"" X 96"" and approximately 3'' thick. While the plaintiff was standing on a sheet of this Insulrock it collapsed causing plaintiff to fall from the one-story roof to the ground. The theory of the complaint was in negligence and on the warranty by defendant to plaintiff that the roof decking would support him. The amended answer and defense by the defendant was that plaintiff, as an employee of the general contractor, is barred from bringing an action against the defendant, as subcontractor, by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law, F.S.A. § 440.01 et seq.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the above defense and supported by the affidavit of the deputy commissioner which showed that the plaintiff had received workmen's compensation benefits for the subject injury. The plaintiff filed his opposing affidavit which stated that he was not in any manner of speaking an employee of the defendant and therefore was not barred from suing the defendant as a third-party tortfeasor.
The lower court, after considering the pleadings, affidavits and arguments of the parties, entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff's claim was barred by the provisions of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law.
The plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by E. M. Scott, the general contractor in charge of building an addition to television station WTVT in Tampa. The defendant was employed by the general contractor as a subcontractor to furnish and install a roof-deck consisting of Insulrock slabs clamped down to steel supports. While plaintiff was standing on a slab of this Insulrock performing duties for his employer, the slab collapsed thereby causing plaintiff to fall through the roof onto the ground.
The plaintiff was not employed by the defendant, received no pay from defendant, was under no dominion or control of the defendant, nor could he be fired by the defendant. The plaintiff did file a claim for and received workmen's compensation benefits from the general contractor's carrier which included both medical treatment and compensation payments.
The question involved may be tersely stated as follows:
May an employee of a general contractor sue a subcontractor for negligence where the employee had applied for and accepted compensation?
The lower court held that such employee was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law. We concur in the decision of the lower court.
This court held in the case of Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 740, 741, that a duty devolved on the general contractor and not on a subcontractor to secure employee of subcontractor's subcontractor by workmen's compensation insurance or be primarily liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation claim of employee of subcontractor's subcontractor. In this case we said:
'Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, 1957, F.S.A., provides:
* * *
* * *
'It is manifest that the purpose of Section 440.10(1) is to protect employees of irresponsible and uninsured subcontractors by imposing ultimate liability on the general contractor who has it within his power to insist upon adequate compensation protection for employees of his subcontractors. The Supreme Court of Florida in Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690, held that Florida Statutes Section 440.10(1) F.S.A., imposes a statutory liability on the general contractor where the subcontractor has failed to secure adequate compensation coverage and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gross v. Rudy's Stone Co.
...its principle has been consistently adhered to. E. g., Stone v. Buckley, Fla.App.2, 1961, 132 So.2d 613; Slack v. Acousti Engineering Company of Florida, Fla.App.2, 1960, 122 So.2d 574; Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals, Inc., Fla.App. 3, 1958, 105 So.2d 578; Waters v. General Sheet Metal &......
-
Stone v. Buckley, 1977
...independent action could be maintained. From the second district, an opinion by Judge Allen in the case of Slack v. Acousti Engineering Company of Florida, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 574, dealt with an employee of a general contractor who had accepted from the general contractor benefits under......
-
International Builders of Florida, Inc. v. Stevens
...except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." F.S. 440.10, F.S.A.3 Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 840, 843.4 Fla.App.2d Dist.1960, 122 So.2d 574.5 Carter v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 25. See also Shirley v. Asbell, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 828, and Jones v. Fl......
-
Woodworth v. Metallic Engineering Company
...Associate Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Carter v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 198 So.2d 25 (Fla.1967); Slack v. Acousti Engineering Company of Florida, 122 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Gross v. Rudey's Stone Co., Inc., 179 So.2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA ...