CHARLES JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
COMET STEEL ERECTION, INC., AND RELIANCE 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.
Johnson, an employee of a general contractor, was injured by ordinary negligence of a subcontractor's welder while both worked on the same construction project. The court held that the subcontractor's immunity from suit extends to injuries caused to the general contractor's employee when their work is related, even though Johnson was a common laborer and the tort-feasor was a welder.
The court held that the fact that the appellant was a common laborer for the general contractor and the tort-feasor was a welder for the subcontractor did not make their work 'unrelated' such that the subcontractor's immunity would be inapplicable. The subcontractor enjoys broad immunity from suit by an employee of the general contractor when both are employed on-site in the same construction project.
[1] The statutory immunity afforded a subcontractor from suit by an employee of the general contractor applies when the employees of both are engaged in the same construction…
[2] For the purposes of workers' compensation immunity, the work of a common laborer for a general contractor and a welder for a subcontractor on the same construction site i…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the fact that appellant was a common laborer for the general contractor and the tort-feasor was a welder for the subcontractor did not make their work 'unrelated' so that the immunity enjoyed by the subcontractor from suit by an employee of the general contractor would be inapplicable”
Establishes the core holding that different job classifications do not create unrelated work for immunity purposes in construction projects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson, a common laborer employed by a general contractor, was injured on a construction project due to the ordinary negligence of an employee of a s…
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 Fellow Servant Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Where appellant, an employee of the general contractor, was injured as a result of the ordinary negligence of the subcontractor’s employee1 while both were employed on-site in the same construction project, the fact that appellant was a common laborer for the general contractor and the tortfeasor was a welder for the subcontractor did not make their work “unrelated”2 so that the immunity enjoyed by the subcontractor from suit by an employee of the general contractor would be inapplicable. While there is no direct precedent for determining what is related work under Section 440.11, Florida Statute (1981), several prior cases indicate the broad scope of immunity afforded a subcontractor for injuries to an employee of a general contractor. See Motchkavitz v. L.C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1981); Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690 (1940); Williams v. Corbett Cranes, Inc., 396 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Aderhold v. Blair Contracting Company, Inc., 350 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Mack v. Cook & Pruitt Masonry, Inc., 186 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Affirmed.
. Appellant concedes that the subcontractor is an employee of the general contractor so as to render applicable the fellow servant rule of Section 440.11, Florida Statute (1981). The sole issue on appeal is whether the subcontractor’s work is related to the work of the general contractor’s employee.
. Parts of the applicable statutes relied upon by appellant provide:
440.10 Liability for compensation.—
In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors ... shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment: and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees....
440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.—
(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to ... the employee .... 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 ... 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 supplied].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., Inc., 143 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1940)
- Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1981)
- Mack v. Cook & Pruitt Masonry, Inc., 186 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Smeltz v. State, 396 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Williams v. Corbett Cranes, Inc., 396 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Aderhold v. Blair Contracting Co., Inc., 350 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)