DYNAPLAST, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MARTA SIRIA, ETC., ET AL., 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.
The trial court erred in denying the employer's motion for summary judgment because the employee's complaint did not allege conduct rising to the level of an intentional tort.
[1] An employer is immune from suit for employee injuries if workers' compensation benefits were provided, unless the employer's conduct rises to the level of an intentional…
[2] An employer's actions constitute an intentional tort only if the employer exhibits a deliberate intent to injure or engages in conduct substantially certain to result in…
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 intelligenceAn employee was injured while operating a machine and sued her employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under the workers…
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 Substantial Certainty Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dynaplast, Inc., appeals from a nonfinal order denying its motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi). For the following reason, we reverse.
On February 11, 1987, Marta Siria, the plaintiff below, was injured while operating a plastic injection molding machine during the course of her employment with Dynaplast. Siria sued Dynaplast as a result of the accident. Dynaplast moved for summary judgment asserting that it was immune from suit pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987) because it provided workers’ compensation benefits.1 The trial court denied the motion.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment as there is no evidence in the record showing that Dyna-plast’s conduct rose to the level of an intentional tort. Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1993); Mirabal v. Cachurra Corp., 580 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1991). “In order for an employer’s actions to amount to an intentional tort, the employer must either exhibit a deliberate intent to injure or engage in conduct which is substantially certain to result in injury or death. A strong probability is different from substantial certainty and cannot constitute intentional wrongdoing.” Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co., 498 So. 2d 882, 883-84 (Fla.1986) (citations omitted); Lawton v. Alpine Engineered Prods., Inc., 498 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla.1986). Indeed, workers’ compensation is an employee’s sole remedy even if the employer is guilty of gross negligence. Id. at 881.
Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Siria, her Fourth Amended Complaint does not allege conduct rising to the level of an intentional tort sufficient to avoid the exclusivity provision in section 440.11(1). The trial court erred in denying Dynaplast’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with directions to grant the motion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. Section 440.11(1) provides that an employer's workers' compensation liability "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability...
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kline v. Rubio, 652 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…to the level of an intentional act. Accord Lawton, 498 So. 2d at 879 (not an intentional tort when employer instructs employee to operate dangerous machinery without warning the employee about the machinery’s known hazards); Dynaplast Inc. v. Siria, 637 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (not an intentional tort when employee injured while operating a plastic injection molding machine); cf. Connelly v. Arrow Air., Inc., 568 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1991). Prior to an amendm…
-
McCOY v. Stein Mart, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…arl Davis, David Kimmel and Jay Stein. We affirm the trial court’s order as to Stein Mart, Inc., Kimmel and Stein. Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1993); Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co., 498 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1986); Dynaplast, Inc. v. Siria, 637 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. David, 632 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. dismissed, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla.1994); Timones v. Excel Industries of Fla., 631 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We also affirm the trial court’s or…
-
Roberts v. Weekley, 663 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Dynaplast, Inc. v. Siria, 637 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. David, 632 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla.1994).…
Authorities Cited
- Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co., 498 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1986)
- Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1993)
- Lawton v. Alpine Engineered Prods., Inc., 498 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1986)
- Mirabal v. Cachurra Corp., 580 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)