CHARLES LARZELERE AND CHRISTEL LARZELERE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, A MUTUAL COMPANY, C.P. WARD, INC., KBH EQUIPMENT COMPANY, SSP CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, INC., SSP INDUSTRIES, FRED GRAMLICH AND ENTERPRISE BUILDING CORPORATION, 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.
The Larzeleres appealed summary judgment dismissing their negligence claims against crane lessors KBH Equipment and C.P. Ward. The court reversed, holding that while worker's compensation immunity barred the negligence claim based on operator error, the trial court erroneously disposed of the pleaded product liability claim without addressing whether a defect in the crane contributed to the injury.
The court held that while worker's compensation immunity bars negligence claims against the equipment lessors under the borrowed servant doctrine, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether a defect in the crane contributed to the injury, precluding summary judgment on the product liability claim.
[1] A lessor of a dangerous instrumentality leased to an employer shares the employer's workers' compensation immunity from suit by employees when the instrumentality becomes…
[2] A crane operator, acting under the direction of a lessee employer, may be considered a borrowed servant of that employer.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When a dangerous instrumentality is leased to an employer, the lessor shares the employer's worker's compensation immunity from suit by employees.”
Establishes the legal principle supporting immunity for equipment lessors under worker's compensation law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Larzelere, an Enterprise Building Corporation employee, was injured when shorejacks being raised by a crane fell and struck him. The crane was…
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 Borrowed Servant Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Charles Larzelere and Christel Larzelere, his wife, have appealed from a final summary judgment in favor of C.P. Ward, Inc., and KBH Equipment Company. We reverse.
Charles Larzelere, an employee of Enterprise Building Corporation, was injured on the job when shorejacks being raised by a crane fell and hit him. The crane was owned and furnished by KBH and Ward, but the crane and the operator had been leased to Enterprise. When the accident occurred, Enterprise’s employees had seated the load on the hook and were directing the crane operator with hand signals.
The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that suit against KBH and Ward was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of section 440.11, Florida Statutes, the workers compensation statute. The trial court concluded that, as in Halifax Paving v. Scott & Jobalia Construction Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla.1990), the crane had become a workplace tool of Enterprise. 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 Larzeleres had also sued Ward and KBH for supplying a defective crane. In the order granting summary judgment in favor of Ward and KBH on the issue of the crane operator’s negligence, the trial court did not preserve the Larzeleres’ pleaded product liability claim.
The fifth district has recently addressed a similar situation in Litton v. Saf-T-Green of Orlando, Inc. and Stillman, 608 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). There the court stated,
Given the evidence in the record, this case appears ultimately to turn on a disputed issue of fact: was the cause of accident a defect or other problem with the machinery or was it operator error? Under the former, Saf-T-Green would be liable to the employee; under the latter, Saf-T-Green would enjoy worker’s compensation immunity. This factual issue could not, however, be decided by way of summary judgment.
608 So. 2d at 910.
At the hearing on the Ward/KBH motion for summary judgment, the attorney for the Larzeleres specifically advised the trial court that the products liability claim was not a part of the motion for summary judgment. The court nevertheless entered a final summary judgment in favor of KBH and Ward, without excluding that claim from its order. Because genuine issues of material fact may exist concerning whether a defect, if any, in the crane supplied by Ward and KBH contributed to the Larzeleres’ injuries, the final summary judgment is reversed to the extent that it deprives the Larzeleres of their product liability claim.
PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruno v. Destiny Transp., Inc., 921 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…s about where to set up the pump and LCC’s employees’ role in notifying Gamboa and Garcia when to turn the pump on and off are insufficient to prove control by LCC. See Gen. Crane, Inc., 744 So. 2d at 1065; cf. Larzelere v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 613 So. 2d 510, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding leased crane operator to be borrowed servant because he was being directed in operating the crane by hand signals from employees of special employer). Due to the conflicting inferences, summary judgment was inapprop…
-
Sherrill v. Corbett Cranes Servs., Inc., 656 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…mune from tort actions by injured employees of the general contractor because the crane company’s operator is considered a special employee or borrowed servant of the general contractor.1 At least one court, in Larzelere v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 613 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1993), has applied Halifax Paving to conclude that a crane company which had leased a crane and operator to a builder was immune from suit by one of the builder’s employees who was injured when shore…
-
BET Plant Servs., Inc. v. Chester, 661 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Larzelere v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 613 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 624 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1993); Litton v. Saf-T-Green of Orlando, Inc., 608 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), review denied, 617 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1993). RYDER, AC.J., and FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)
- Miami Elevator Co. & Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll. v. Grinstein, 559 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Morales v. Ryder Truck Rental & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Litton v. Saf-T-Green OF Orlando, Inc., 608 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)