West v. Jessop, 76--426
| Decision Date | 01 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--426,76--426 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 1136 |
| Parties | Maria Butterworth WEST, Appellant, v. Sidney H. JESSOP and Insurance Company of North America, a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William A. Patterson, Masterson, Rogers & Patterson, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
James C. Hadaway, Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees.
The question posed in this case is whether an employee of a corporation, who suffers an injury as a result of the negligence of that corporation's president during working hours, can maintain an action against the president even though she is covered by the workmen's compensation law.
Maria Butterworth West was employed by Sun State Properties, Inc. d/b/a United States Medical Training Academy. Sidney Jessop was the president and owner of all outstanding stock of the corporation.
On December 4, 1973, while at work Ms. West complained of a headache. In an attempt to relieve her pain, Jessop wrenched her neck causing permanent injury. She recovered workmen's compensation insurance benefits for the injury.
Subsequently, she filed this negligence action against Jessop alleging that he was a co-employee, and thereby subject to a third party action for damages. The court granted Jessop a summary judgment holding that he was immune from suit as West's employer under Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1973).
There is no doubt that the statute would preclude a suit against the corporate employer. On the other hand, co-employees are subject to third party actions for negligent acts done during the course of employment. Frantz v. MeBee Company, 77 So.2d 796 (Fla.1955). Where does Mr. Jessop stand when he is both a co-employee and, in effect, the employer by reason of his office and his ownership of all the corporate stock?
While this is an issue of first impression in Florida, it has been considered in other jurisdictions. A careful analysis of the problem is found in Kruse v. Schieve, 61 Wis.2d 421, 213 N.W.2d 64 (1973), in which the court held that the liability of a corporate officer in a third party action must derive from acts done by him in the capacity of a co-employee and may not be predicated upon acts done by him in his capacity as a corporate officer. The court reasoned that a corporate officer becomes amenable to suit as a co-employee when he has committed an affirmative act of negligence which goes beyond the scope of the nondelegable duty of the employer to provide his employees with a safe place to work.
This principle makes sense. To blindly hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
82 Hawai'i 1, Iddings v. Mee-Lee
...did not bar suits against supervisory co-employees under all circumstances. Relying on an earlier decision in West v. Jessop, 339 So.2d 1136 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976), the court acknowledged that, where "something extra" over and beyond the duty owed the employer is present, the supervisory em......
-
Athas v. Hill
...So.2d 1193, 1194 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.) (superseded by statutory amendment), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979); West v. Jessop, 339 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976) (superseded by statutory amendment); Kerrigan v. Errett, 256 N.W.2d 394, 396-97 (Iowa 1977) (superseded by statutory a......
-
Shova v. Eller
...by 1968, I have not located that precedent. 5 It was in the context of this common law that the Second District decided West v. Jessop, 339 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), Zurich Insurance Co. v. Scofi, 366 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979), and Kaplan v. Circu......
-
Streeter v. Sullivan
...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 n......