WILLIAM SWARTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD, BACON & DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Swartz, injured in a construction accident, sued Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corporation based on contractual language requiring Ford's services to comply with applicable codes and regulations. The court affirmed summary judgment for Ford, holding that the contract did not impose a duty on Ford to supervise the actual construction methods or safety practices of the contractor performing the work.
The contract imposed no duty on Ford to supervise or control the construction contractor's work or methods. Article X merely required that Ford's own services comply with applicable codes and regulations, not that Ford ensure the contractor's compliance. Summary judgment was proper because the contract language was unambiguous.
[1] A party is not liable for a contractor's failure to comply with safety regulations unless the contract imposes a duty and responsibility to supervise or control the contr…
[2] A contract provision requiring services to comply with applicable codes does not, without more, impose a duty to supervise or control the actual construction methods used…
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“Unless the contract herein imposes upon Ford a duty and responsibility to supervise and/or control the actual method of construction utilized by B.E. & K., it cannot be held liable for that contractor's failure to comply with required safety regulations.”
Establishes the legal principle that liability for contractor safety violations requires an explicit contractual duty to supervise or control construction methods.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1979, Ford, an architectural and engineering firm, contracted with St. Regis Paper Company to provide engineering services for a paper machine inst…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Swartz appeals from the entry of final summary judgment on behalf of Ford, Bacon and Davis Construction Corporation (Ford). We affirm.
In 1979, Ford, an architectural and engineering firm, entered into a contract with St. Regis Paper Company to provide engineering services for the installation of a paper machine. Swartz, an employee of B.E. & K. Construction, who was performing the project construction for St. Regis, was injured in a high fall from a steel structure. Temporary flooring and safety nets, although required, were not in use.
Swartz based his suit against Ford on its contract with St. Regis, specifically Article X thereof, which provided that all of Ford’s services were to “comply with, satisfy, and be subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, rules and regulations of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the design and/or construction of the project....” Swartz contends that this language is ambiguous, and creates a question as to whether Ford had a duty to supervise B.E. & K. Construction and to require that it provide the required safety devices. This ambiguity allegedly creates an issue of material fact as to the correct interpretation of the contract language precluding summary judgment. See Titan Atlantic Construction Company v. Quality Electric Service, Inc., 409 So. 2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We disagree.
Unless the contract herein imposes upon Ford a duty and responsibility to supervise and/or control the actual method of construction utilized by B.E. & K., it cannot be held liable for that contractor’s failure to comply with required safety regulations. See Vorndran v. Wright, 367 So. 2d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). See also Show v. Department of Transportation, 468 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (no liability when contract does not impose explicit duty to monitor, inspect, and correct violations by the contractor).
Ford’s contractual duties are clearly stated in Article II of the contract, and do not specify or imply a duty to supervise or control construction contractors’ work. Further, Article X relied on by Swartz clearly requires only that Ford’s services comply with applicable codes. There is no contractual ambiguity and summary judgment was proper. AFFIRMED.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Perez, 509 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ish that Poms was responsible to assure the contractor’s compliance with safety procedures. However, the provisions in Poms’ contract14 with the City are similar to the contractual provisions described in Swartz v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Constr. Corp., 469 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). There the court held that “[ujnless the contract herein imposes upon Ford a duty and responsibility to supervise and/or control the actual method of construction utilized by B.E. & K., it cannot be held liable for that contracto…
-
Barnes v. Gulf Power Co., 517 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…person may voluntarily assume a duty to protect another from a criminal attack, any such agreement, while not necessarily in writing, must be express. See Annot., 10 ALR 3d 619, 629 (1966). Cf. Swartz v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corporation, 469 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (while contract expressly provided that architectural and engineering firm would comply with all applicable building codes, the contract did not expressly state that the firm had a duty to supervise and/or control the actual meth…
-
Hewett v. Travelers Ins. Co., 538 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…of the work. Although delays may have occurred due to underground utility lines which the city moved when necessary, this circumstance does not render the city liable to Columbia Paving’s employees. As in Swartz v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Constr. Corp., 469 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the contractual arrangement provided Columbia Paving with sole control as to the manner in which the work was performed, and no action by either the city or its project representative diminished this authority. Neither the city…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perez v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 468 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Vorndran v. Carson Bennett Wright, 367 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Lister v. Lavere Walker, 409 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)