KERRY L. BARROW, APPELLANT,
v.
SHEL PRODUCTS, INC. D/B/A SHELTON TRUCKING, APPELLEE
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.
Kerry Barrow, a truck driver injured in a work accident, appealed a workers' compensation determination that Shelton Trucking was not his statutory employer. The court affirmed that no direct employer-employee relationship existed but reversed the finding that Shelton Trucking was not a statutory employer under Florida law, holding that Shelton retained sufficient contractual responsibility for the hauling work.
The court held that Shelton Trucking was a statutory employer despite the absence of a written contract and the ad hoc arrangement. The court reversed and remanded the case for determination of whether Barrow was within the course and scope of employment with Shelton Trucking at the time of the accident, as this issue was not addressed by the deputy commissioner.
[1] A workers' compensation claimant may be a statutory employee even in the absence of a written contract with the employer.
[2] Workers' compensation statutes should be broadly construed to provide coverage to claimants.
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 workers compensation act should be broadly construed so as to provide coverage to claimants”
Establishes the principle that workers' compensation statutes receive broad rather than narrow interpretation to protect workers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarrow, a 37-year-old truck driver from West Virginia, suffered injuries to his right knee and left hand on December 21, 1982, when the tractor-traile…
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 Statutory Employer cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Kerry L. Barrow, claimant, appeals the final order of the deputy commissioner finding that no employer/employee relationship existed between claimant and Shelton Trucking and that Shelton Trucking was not a statutory employer of claimant under the provisions of section 440.10, Florida Statutes (Fla.1981). We affirm the finding that no employer/employee relationship existed on the basis of competent substantial evidence in the record. We reverse the finding that Shelton Trucking was not a statutory employer. Claimant, a 37-year-old truck driver from Charleston, West Virginia, injured his right knee and left hand in a truck accident on December 21, 1982 in Palm Beach County, Florida. At the time of the accident, claimant was driving a tractor/trailer which had been leased to Shelton Trucking by Forest Elder, the owner/operator, who was also in the truck. Elder and the claimant had delivered a load of Kal Kan dog food to a Publix store in Miami and were apparently on their way to pick up another load (although not for Shelton Trucking).
On the statutory employer question, the deputy commissioner found:
(1) There was no written contract between Shelton Trucking and the manufacturer of Kal Kan dog food introduced into evidence.
(2) The arrangement was ad hoc on an instance-by-instance basis.
(3) To the extent that Shelton Trucking sublet hauling work, it sublet the entire contractual responsibility, receiving a brokerage-type commission.
The absence of a written contract is immaterial because the statute does not require that the contract be written. The ad hoc arrangement only indicates that there were perhaps individual contracts covering each load as opposed to a master contract covering all loads. There are two problems with the deputy’s conclusion that the entire contractual obligation was passed along to Elder as if Shelton only brokered the transaction. Contrary to this narrow construction given by the deputy, the workers compensation act should be broadly construed so as to provide coverage to claimants. Furthermore, there is no record evidence to support a finding that Shelton Trucking did not retain an overriding contractual responsibility for each load of Kal Kan dog food hauled by Elder and Barrow. Shelton Trucking did not merely refer the manufacturer to Elder, but accepted the hauling job in its own name. Elder’s truck carried a placard bearing the name Shelton Trucking. The paperwork was apparently handled by Shelton Trucking, which paid Elder 80% of what it received from the manufacturer. We find this case to be controlled by the holdings in Hart v. National Air Lines, Inc., 217 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. den. without opinion, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969), and Belford Trucking Company v. Pinson, 360 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Appellee argues that this court should affirm the deputy commissioner’s denial of the claim upon a finding that claimant was outside the course and scope of any employment with Shelton Trucking at the time of the accident. This question was not decided by the deputy commissioner, nor, in our opinion, was adequate evidence presented by the parties on this issue.
The final order of the deputy commissioner is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MILLS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…v. Debrosse, 463 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Florida Power and Light Company v. Brown, 274 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Appellant contends that the result in his case should be controlled by our decision in Barrow v. Shel Products, Inc., 466 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Barrow, the claimant was driving a tractor-trailer rig that had been leased to Shelton Trucking by Forrest Elder, the owner-operator of the tractor-trailer, who was also in the truck at the time. Elder and the claimant had de…1 / 3
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g v. Hatch, 617 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ct between the contractor and a third party, not to any agreement between the contractor and subcontractor. See Sheedy v. Vista Properties, Inc., 410 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982); Barrow v. Shel Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Hammel v. Pittman, 389 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Street v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co., 148 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). An entity working solely for itself, rather than performing contract work for another, does no…
-
Antinarelli v. Ocean Suite Hotel & Nation Wide Ins. Co., 642 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…rmore, Kendrick admitted that Moon and Juniper’s Restaurant performed the breakfast part of the contract. Whether or not a formal written contract existed between Hotel and those guests is immaterial under the statute. Barrow v. Shel Products, Inc., 466 So. 2d 281, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The competent substantial evidence in the record leads us to only one conclusion: in setting particular package rates, Hotel assumed a primary, basic, and essential obligation to designated guests to provide a complimentary…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Benny Carroll Taylor v. State, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1969)
- Meiselman v. City of Miami Beach, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1969)
- Hart v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 217 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Belford Trucking Co. v. Pinson, 360 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)