MIGUEL MORALES, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RYDER TRUCK RENTAL AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 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.
Miguel Morales sued Ryder Truck Rental for injuries caused by a coworker driving a leased truck, but the court held that Ryder, as lessor of a dangerous instrumentality to the employer, shares the employer's workers' compensation immunity and therefore cannot be sued by the employee.
Ryder, as lessor of the dangerous instrumentality (truck) to the employer, shares the employer's workers' compensation immunity and is therefore not liable to Morales for injuries caused by his coworker's negligence.
[1] A lessor of a dangerous instrumentality to an employer shares the employer's workers' compensation immunity from suit by an employee for personal injuries.
[2] A leased vehicle used as a working tool in an employer's business is the functional equivalent of a vehicle owned by the employer for purposes of workers' compensation im…
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 leased vehicle "became, insofar as his [the employer's] employees were concerned, the equivalent of vehicles owned by the employer. They are, so to speak, the vehicles or working tools used in carrying on the employer's business."”
Establishes the functional equivalence doctrine that makes leased vehicles subject to workers' compensation immunity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 22, 1985, Miguel Morales and Jack Beaver, both employees of Shell City Liquors, were working at the Miami Grand Prix. Shell City had been …
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 Common Enterprise cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Miguel and Luisa Morales appeal from an order of final summary judgment. We affirm.
On February 22, 1985, Miguel Morales and Jack Beaver, both employees of Shell City Liquors [Shell City], were working at the Miami Grand Prix. Shell City had been hired by Gene’s Catering [Gene’s] to provide liquor at the event. Gene’s had leased a truck from Ryder Truck Rental [Ryder]. Beaver drove the Ryder truck and caused injury to Morales, his passenger and coworker. Morales and his wife sued Ryder and its insurer for personal injuries and loss of consortium. Ryder answered and asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Morales’s claim was barred by workers’ compensation immunity. See generally § 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1987). Ryder moved for summary judgment on the immunity issue; the trial court granted the motion. We affirm.
The Supreme Court of Florida has held that when a dangerous instrumentality is leased to an employer, the lessor shares with the employer workers’ compensation immunity from suit by the employee for personal injuries. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1966); see also Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 150 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (same), cert. dismissed, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1964). In Smith, the court held that the leased vehicle “became, insofar as his [the employer’s] employees were concerned, the equivalent of vehicles owned by the employer. They are, so to speak, the vehicles or working tools used in carrying on the employer’s business.” 182 So. 2d at 424. The court reasoned that “[t]he employees are not third party members of the public. They are fellow servants, engaged in operating the vehicles similarly as other owned equipment of their employer. They have agreed by accepting the Workers’ Compensation Act to release their employer from any civil liability arising under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.” Id. Under such circumstances, the court held, it would be inequitable to impute vicarious liability to the lessor. Id.
The result and reasoning in Smith require affirmance of the order on appeal. As a matter of law, Ryder is not vicariously liable for the negligence of Morales’s coemployee. As lessor of the vehicle, Ryder partakes of the employer’s workers’ compensation immunity. The truck was used as a “working tool” of Morales’s employer and, thus, was the functional equivalent of a truck owned by the employer. It matters not that Gene’s, and not Shell City, Morales’s immediate employer, leased the truck from Ryder. Shell City had been hired by Gene’s; both were engaged in a common enterprise.1 Morales and Beaver were co-employees engaged in furthering that enterprise. Therefore, Morales’s claim against Ryder is barred by workers’ compensation immunity.2
Affirmed.
. The record does not reveal whether Morales and Beaver were borrowed servants, independent contractors, subcontractors, or temporary employees of Gene’s. Their actual employment status is not relevant to our decision today; Ryder shares the workers’ compensation immunity with whichever employer — Gene’s or Shell City — was responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage to Morales.
. As there was an actual lease between Ryder and Gene’s, our decision today creates no further conflict between the districts on the issue of whether a lease is necessary between the owner and employer in order for the owner to share the employer’s immunity. See Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co. v. Halifax Paving, 538 So. 2d 76, 82 (Fla. 5th DCA) (crane’s owner shares employer’s immunity even when no lease exists and crane "borrowed on a handshake”), rev. granted, 544 So. 2d 199 (Fla.1989); compare, Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Constr. Co., 527 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA) (where no lease exists between owner and employer, owner does not acquire employer's immunity), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)…and the operator of this instrumentality was a borrowed servant, not a fellow servant. We agree with the Fifth District that these differences are not sufficient to justify a different result than that in Smith. Accord Morales v. Ryder Truck Rental, 559 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Indeed, the central policies of worker’s compensation are to provide employees with a swift and adequate means of compensation for injury, and to insulate employers from potentially bankrupting tort liability for work-place acci…
-
Gen. Crane, Inc. v. Grady McNEAL and Annette McNeal, 744 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…e it from liability. See, e.g., Commercial Coatings of Northwest Fla., Inc. v. Pensacola Concrete Constr. Co., 616 So. 2d 960 (Fla.1993); Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla.1990); Morales v. Ryder Truck Rental, 559 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). However, a competing principle enters into play where a general employer rents equipment of considerable value along with a servant to operate it. In such a case, it is presumed that the general employer expects the employee to p…
-
Larzelere v. Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau, 613 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ise. See Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1966). When a dangerous instrumentality is leased to an employer, the lessor shares the employer’s worker’s compensation immunity from suit by employees. Morales v. Ryder Truck Rental, 559 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The crane operator, acting under Enterprise’s direction, became Enterprise’s borrowed servant. Although the trial court acted correctly in its disposition of the negligence issue, it failed to take into account that the Larzeler…
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
- Freddy R. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1966)
- Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1964)
- Green Driggers v. State, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1964)
- Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 538 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 150 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Mann v. Pensacola Concrete Constr. Co., Inc., 527 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)