Wilson v. Sirkin Bldg. Corp., 75--1236

Decision Date27 July 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75--1236,75--1236
Citation336 So.2d 462
PartiesRobert C. WILSON, Appellant, v. SIRKIN BUILDING CORPORATION, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Whitman & Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.

Sam Daniels, Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Robert C. Wilson, appeals from a final judgment after a non-jury trial barring him from maintaining a tort suit against the defendant, Sirkin Building Corporation, and relegating him to his workmen's compensation remedy. The final judgment under review reads as follows:

'THIS action came on to be tried pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, before the Court, sitting without a jury, on the issue of liability. On the evidence presented the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

'FINDINGS OF FACT

'1. Sometime prior to March 13, 1973, one Julius Silver acting in behalf of 418 Euclid Avenue Corp., entered into an agreement with Alan Sirkin who was acting in behalf of Sirkin Building Corporation. The agreement of these parties, in essence, provided as follows:

a. Each of the parties agreed to jointly engage in a venture to build a condominium type of building at a location described as 418 Euclid Avenue, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida.

b. Each of the parties agreed to contribute capital toward the financing of said project and in fact each party did contribute the sum of $20,000.00.

c. Each of the parties maintained the right of joint control and the right to bind each other. This control was evidenced by the fact that on various occasions Alan Sirkin signed contracts with subcontractors to do work on the job and at various times Julius Silver signed contracts with other subcontractors to perform work on said building project.

d. The parties agreed in the event there was a financial loss incurred in this venture there was an obligation for each to share in the loss.

e. The parties maintained a bank account separate and apart from any other accounts, which account dealt solely with this project. Each of the parties were required to sign any checks written on said account and in fact each party did sign all checks written on said account.

f. The agreement between 418 Euclid Avenue Corp. and Sirkin Building Corp. was solely for the purpose of building the condominium at 418 Euclid Avenue.

'2. Acting pursuant to the parties agreement, 418 Euclid Avenue Corp. purchased a Workmen's Compensation insurance policy which policy in fact provided coverage for any and all employees of any joint venture or partnership of which 418 Euclid Avenue Corp. was a party.

'3. The Plaintiff, as a result of the accident sued upon herein, made claim against 418 Euclid Avenue Corp. for Workmen's Compensation benefits and did receive said benefits under the policy of insurance placed into evidence by the Plaintiff and referred to in paragraph 2 above.

'4. On the day of the accident giving rise to this action the Plaintiff was hired to do certain 'cleanup work'. He was hired by Mr's. Silver and Sirkin and was to be paid out of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Austin v. Duval County School Bd.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 juillet 1995
    ...injuries against the other joint venturer. Burke v. Charles B. Esher, Inc., 397 So.2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Wilson v. Sirkin Building Corp., 336 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In addition to the general elements of a contract, for a joint venture, there must be: (1) a community of int......
  • A. Mazzetti & Sons, Inc. v. Ruffin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 18 novembre 1981
    ...the existence of a joint venture or undertaking which also involves joint control over a construction project, Wilson v. Sirkin Building Corp., Fla.App., 336 So.2d 462 (1976); Guilbeau v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., La.App., 324 So.2d 571 (1975), mod. 338 So.2d 600 (1976); and (f) that wo......
  • Burke v. Charles B. Esher, Inc., 79-1560
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 28 avril 1981
    ...for these injuries against either of the joint venturer general contractors. § 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1975). Cf. Wilson v. Sirkin Building Corporation, 336 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (injured employee of joint venture covered under workers' compensation insurance policy secured by one joint v......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT