DARRELL HOFER, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHLAND CORPORATION AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff employee of an air conditioning subcontractor appealed a directed verdict entered against him in a personal injury action against a property owner. The court affirmed, holding that a property owner is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of an independent contractor's employee when the owner bears no fault and the injury occurs during work by one subcontractor caused by another subcontractor under a general contractor's supervision.
No. A property owner is not liable for injuries to an independent contractor's employee caused by negligence of another subcontractor's employee when the owner had no negligence and the work occurred under the general contractor's supervision and control.
[1] The inherently dangerous work doctrine imposes a non-delegable duty on an employer to ensure that inherently dangerous work is performed safely, making the employer liabl…
[2] An exception to the inherently dangerous work doctrine shields a contracting owner from liability for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor when the injury…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“liability flowing from operation of the doctrines of dangerous instrumentalities and inherently dangerous work is subject to the exception that where the defendant owner contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of inherently dangerous work and the latter's employee is injured by a dangerous instrumentality owned by the defendant which is negligently applied or operated by another employee of the independent contractor but wholly without any negligence on the part of the defendant owner, the latter will not be held liable”
Establishes the core exception to nondelegable duty doctrine that governs this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant owned land and contracted with a general contractor to construct a building on it. The general contractor hired multiple subcontractors,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inherently Dangerous Work cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is a plaintiff’s appeal in a personal injury action. After a jury trial, the court directed a verdict against plaintiff and entered final judgment for defendants/appel-lees. We find this case to be governed by the rationale of Florida Power & Light Company v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1964), and affirm.
The defendant owned land and was in the process of having a building constructed on it. A general contractor was performing the work pursuant to contract. The general contractor employed a roofing subcontractor and an air conditioning subcontractor among others. Plaintiff was an employee of the air conditioning subcontractor and was injured on the job by the negligence of an employee of the roofing subcontractor. Plaintiff sued the owner alleging vicarious liability only. There was no contention of any actual negligence or fault by the owner/defendant.
Plaintiff contends the roofing work was inherently dangerous and that the owner is liable under a nondelegable duty regarding inherently dangerous work by an independent contractor.1
The case of Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1964), involved a suit by an injured employee of an independent contractor against an owner. In reaching its conclusion of no liability, the Supreme Court stated as follows at page 298:
We hold that liability flowing from operation of the doctrines of dangerous in-strumentalities and inherently dangerous work is subject to the exception that where the defendant owner contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of inherently dangerous work and the latter’s employee is injured by a dangerous instrumentality owned by the defendant which is negligently applied or operated by another employee of the independent contractor but wholly without any negligence on the part of the defendant owner, the latter will not be held liable.
We hold the same rationale applies to bar liability in the instant situation where the employee of one subcontractor injures the employee of another subcontractor while both are engaged in the common contractual labor under the supervision and control of the general contractor. Again we stress that here there was no contention of negligence by the defendant owner. The final judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur. . For the purposes of this opinion, it is assumed that the roofing work in question was inherently dangerous.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxley v. Dixie Land & Timber Co., 521 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ork, based on the contractual relationship between the owner and the independent contractor and the risks necessarily assumed by such contractor, its employees, and its subcontractors in performing the work. Thus, in Hofer v. Southland Corporation, 370 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 767 (Fla.1980), the court held that where a defendant land owner was having a building constructed by a general contractor, who, in turn, had employed a roofing subcontractor and an air conditioning subc…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1964)