BETTY HOOK AND JOHN F. HOOK, APPELLANTS,
v.
GARY BROWN D/B/A CONTEMPORARY CENTERS, GARY BROWN INDIVIDUALLY, KENDALL PLAZA D/B/A SHOPS OF KENDALL AND SHAMS CLEANERS, INC., 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.
An employee of a shopping center tenant sued for carbon monoxide poisoning allegedly caused by improper roof repair. The court reversed summary judgments granted to both the drycleaning tenant and the shopping center owner/manager, finding genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment for either defendant.
Summary judgment was improper for both defendants. As to the drycleaning tenant, there is a factual issue regarding whether it arranged for the repair and whether the contractor was an employee/agent or independent contractor. As to the shopping center owner/manager, there is insufficient evidence in the record establishing it had no responsibility for roof maintenance and repair, particularly given evidence it had undertaken such repairs in the past.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when there is an issue of fact as to whether a tenant arranged for roof repairs and whether the repairs were to be done by an employee or ind…
[2] A shopping center owner/manager may be subject to liability for roof repairs even if the lease does not explicitly assign responsibility, especially if the owner has unde…
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“From the record there is an issue of fact as to whether the drycleaning tenant arranged for the roof repair, and if so, was it to be done by an employee/agent or independent contractor. Therefore it was error to relieve the drycleaning tenant of liability by summary judgment.”
Establishes that unresolved factual questions regarding who arranged repairs and the contractor's status preclude summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetty and John Hook brought an action against a shopping center owner/manager and a drycleaning tenant, alleging the Hooks' employee was injured by ca…
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 Independent Contractor Vs. Employee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By these appeals we are called upon to review the propriety of two summary judgments, one in favor of a shopping center/owner/manager and the other in favor of a drycleaning tenant therein, in an action by an employee of another tenant allegedly injured by carbon monoxide poisoning because of improper roof repair. From the record there is an issue of fact as to whether the drycleaning tenant arranged for the roof repair, and if so, was it to be done by an employee/agent or independent contractor. Therefore it was error to relieve the drycleaning tenant of liability by summary judgment. Carroll v. Kencher, 491 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Padilla v. Gulf Power Company, 401 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Foster v. Lee, 226 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
As to the shopping center/owner/manager, there is nothing in this record to disclose that it does have the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the roof in question. There is evidence that the shopping center/owner/manager had undertaken in the immediate past roof repairs to the center. Therefore, under all the circumstances, we think it was error on this record, at this stage of the proceedings, to relieve the shopping center/owner/manager of liability by summary judgment. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Monroe v. Appelton, 419 So. 2d 356 (Fla 2d DCA 1982); Fogel v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Therefore for the reasons above stated, the two final summary judgments here under review, be and the same are hereby reversed and returned to the trial court for further proceedings, which may entail the entertainment of additional motions for summary judgment after the facts are more fully developed.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. City OF Hialeah, 550 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…uestion, he also testified that he did pick up debris which accumulated in the area such as papers, cans, and bottles. Consequently, there remains a question as to whether he reasonably discharged his duty under the circumstances. See Hook v. Brown, 498 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (error to relieve shopping center/owner/manager of liability by summary judgment for tenant employee’s injury where record did not estab [*1160] lish responsibility for maintenance but evidence of center/owner/manager’s undertakin…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 438 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Foster v. LEE, 226 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Padilla v. Gulf Power Co., 401 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Maxwell Owen Monroe v. Clark Appelton, 419 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Everett v. State, 491 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Fogel v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)