Streeter v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 21 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | 69559,Nos. 68697,s. 68697 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 245,509 So.2d 268 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 245 Donald STREETER and Edward E. Melcher, Petitioners, v. Michael SULLIVAN, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Suzanne Sullivan, his deceased wife, Respondent. Scott Randall STANLICK, et al, Petitioners, v. Donald KAPLAN and John Kaplan, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rex Conrad and Valerie Shea of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for Donald Streeter and Edward E. Melcher.
Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Jowefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami and the Law Offices of Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & McLaughlin, Tampa, for Scott Randall Stanlick et al.
Judith M. Korchin of Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, Miami, and Talbot D'Alemberte of Talbot D'Alemberte, P.A., Tallahassee, for Michael Sullivan.
Steven D. Merryday, Michael A. Fogarty and Joseph H. Varner, III of Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty, Merryday & Russo, Tampa, for Donald Kaplan and John Kaplan.
Leslie King O'Neal and Larry P. Studer of Markel, McDonough & O'Neal, Orlando, for Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Alan E. McMichael of Stripling & Denson, Gainesville and C. Rufus Pennington, III of Margol, Freyfield & Pennington, Jacksonville, for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as being one of great public importance:
DOES SECTION 440.11(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983) PERMIT SUITS AGAINST CORPORATE EMPLOYER OFFICERS, EXECUTIVES, AND SUPERVISORS AS "EMPLOYEES" FOR ACTS OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH OTHER EMPLOYEES MAY WORK?
Sullivan v. Streeter, 485 So.2d 893, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The Second District Court of Appeal, in Kaplan v. Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, 495 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), certified express conflict between that court's decision and the Fourth District's decision in Sullivan. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, sections 3(b)(3), (4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the affirmative, and accordingly approve the decision of the Fourth District and quash the decision of the Second District and remand that case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Suzanne Sullivan was employed as a branch manager of the Davie branch of Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan (Atlantic). In 1981 Atlantic, through Streeter and Melcher, made the economic decision to remove the armed guard from the Davie branch, despite persistent requests from the employees of that branch to maintain the guard. The Davie branch was robbed once in the fall of 1981 and again in June of 1982. Throughout this period the Davie branch employees stepped up their requests to Streeter and Melcher to reassign the armed guard to the branch.
During the June, 1982 robbery, the perpetrator threatened Suzanne Sullivan's life. In July of 1982 the same man returned to the Davie branch and killed Suzanne Sullivan.
Mark Sullivan, Suzanne's husband, brought suit against Atlantic, as well as Streeter and Melcher, alleging that the defendants had acted with gross negligence in failing to provide adequate security, and that this failure proximately caused Suzanne's death. The trial court granted all defendant's motions for summary judgment and Sullivan appealed. The Fourth District affirmed the summary judgment as to Atlantic, but reversed as to Streeter and Melcher, holding that section 440.11(1) expressly imposes liability upon grossly negligent employees. The court stated that corporate officers are "employees" under the statute, and certified the above-styled question to this Court.
Stanlick, a truck driver for Kaplan Industries, was injured when he fell asleep while driving Kaplan's truck. Stanlick brought an action against Kaplan Industries, and Donald and John Kaplan, individually. Stanlick alleged that the Kaplans required him to work excessively long hours in violation of federal law and that the Kaplans required Stanlick to falsify his driving records in order to evade detection by federal authorities. He thus alleged that the Kaplans were guilty of willful and wanton misconduct resulting in foreseeable injury to Stanlick.
The trial court granted Kaplan Industries' motion to dismiss, but denied the Kaplan brothers' similar motion. The Kaplans petitioned the Second District for a writ of prohibition on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Stanlick's complaint. The court granted the writ, holding that corporate officers are not employees; rather they are employers entitled to the immunity under section 440.11(1). The court certified that its decision was in express conflict with Sullivan. 1
The liability or immunity of all defendants rests upon our interpretation of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981). 2 That statute grants immunity to employers and employees for simple negligence but imposes liability on employees who act with gross negligence with respect to their fellow employees. The statute reads:
The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter. Such fellow employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment (emphasis added).
We believe the emphasized portion of the statute to be an unambiguous statement of the legislature's desire to impose liability on all employees who act with gross negligence with respect to their fellow employees, regardless of the grossly negligent employee's corporate status.
The defendants request this Court to define the term "employee," for the purposes of this statute, to exclude corporate officers who are performing the employer's nondelegable duty to maintain a safe workplace. In defining the term "employee," as used in section 440.11(1), we turn to the definitional section of the Worker's Compensation Act, section 440.02. That statute reads, in pertinent part:
When used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
....
(2)(b) The term "employee" includes any person who is an officer of a corporation and who performs services for renumeration for such corporation within this state, whether or not such services are continuous.
We believe that the plain language of this statute definitively brings corporate officers within the scope of the term "employee."
The defendants argue that a distinction be drawn between classes of employees. In support of their arguments, defendants rely primarily on their interpretation of the legislative intent behind the statute, as well as case law having roots that extend to a period before the statute was significantly amended. 3
The first argument espoused by the defendants is that in order to be liable to a fellow employee, a corporate officer must have committed some affirmative act going beyond the scope of the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace. Kaplan v. Tenth Judicial Circuit, 495 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), West v. Jessop, 339 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Defendants argue that if any affirmative acts were committed in either of these cases they did not go beyond the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe place to work. On this basis, the defendants contend that for purposes of providing a safe workplace, the corporate officer is not an employee, but rather an "alter-ego" of the employer, deserving the benefits of the employer's immunity. See Zurich Insurance Co. v. Scofi, 366 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979). To support these contentions, defendants rely on what they perceive is the legislative intent behind the statute.
Inquiry into legislative intent may begin only where the statute is ambiguous on its face. See State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1973). Were these provisions even slightly ambiguous, an examination of legislative history and statutory construction principles would be necessary. We believe, however, that the plain language of sections 440.01 and 440.11(1) precludes any further explanation of legislative intent. These statutes unambiguously impose liability on all employees for their gross negligence resulting in death or injury to their fellow employees. This imposition of liability is blind to corporate status. Nowhere does section 440.11(1) impose upon injured employees a requirement to show that the fellow employee has committed some affirmative act going beyond the scope of the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe place to work. We are not inclined to read such a requirement into the statute when it is plainly not there.
The affirmative act doctrine has its roots in cases interpreting section 440.11(1) before it was amended in 1978. 4 Those cases 5 did not have the benefit of the legislature's statement expressly imposing liability on grossly negligent employees who injure other employees. The basis of those opinions was legislatively abrogated by section 440.11(1). Thus, to the extent that those cases conflict with this opinion (as well as section 440.11(1), as amended), we disapprove of them.
Because of the unambiguous language used in the statute we will not here attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean Wish, LLC v. Lee Cnty.
...v. Galbut , 626 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1993) ; then citing In re McCollam , 612 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1993) ; then citing Streeter v. Sullivan , 509 So. 2d 268, 271 (Fla. 1987) ; and then citing Holly , 450 So. 2d at 219 )); Fla. Retail Fed'n, Inc. v. City of Coral Gables , 282 So. 3d 889, 895-96......
-
Miller v. Indiana Dept. of Workforce Devel.
.... . . which is likely to result in injury.'" (quoting Sullivan v. Streeter, 485 So.2d 893, 895 (Fla.Ct.App.1986), decision approved, 509 So.2d 268 (Fla.1987)); Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5, 13 (2d Cir.1998) (under New York law, "gross negligence `is conduct that evinces a reckless disreg......
-
McCloud v. State
...spoken, the resulting statute demonstrates legislative intent and we simply apply the plain language. E.g. , Streeter v. Sullivan , 509 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 1987) ; State v. Egan , 287 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973). And Florida judges are savvy enough to apply that simple, traditional rule like th......
-
Domino's Pizza, LLC v. Wiederhold
...and sisters." Id. § 768.18(1). Where the legislature has defined a term, courts are bound to follow that definition. Streeter v.Sullivan, 509 So.2d 268, 272 (Fla. 1987). Section 768.21 specifies the types of damages that may be awarded to "each survivor" and additional types of damages for ......
-
The Robertson case: a beneficiary by any other name is still a beneficiary.
...(23) Initial Brief of Appellant; Appeal No. 2 D08-6428, at 78. (24) LeCroy v. McCollam, 612 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1993); Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So. 2d 268 (Fla. (25) Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984). (26) Goldenberg, 791 So. 2d at 1081. (27) I.R.C. ([section]) 402(c)(11)(A)(i). (28) ......