B.E.T. PLANT SERVICES, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION D/B/A SAF-T-GREEN OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
LEROY DYER, 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.
B.E.T. Plant Services appeals orders denying it worker's compensation immunity for an injury to a temporary employee who fell from a truck at a work site after clocking out. The court reverses, holding that the employer is entitled to worker's compensation immunity because the injury occurred while the employee remained on the work premises.
The employer is entitled to worker's compensation immunity because the accident occurred while the plaintiff remained on the work premises within the security area, which falls within the scope of the worker's compensation statute covering injuries during a reasonable period of time before and after official working hours as long as the employee remained on the premises.
[1] An employer is entitled to worker's compensation immunity when an employee is injured on the employer's premises, even after clocking out, if the injury occurs within a r…
[2] An employee injured on the work site within a security area after clocking out, while in the process of leaving the work site, is considered to be on the premises for pur…
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 statute "included injuries occurring during a reasonable period of time before and after official working hours as long as the employee remained on the premises."”
Establishes the legal standard for worker's compensation immunity under Florida law applicable to this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.E.T. Plant Services hired plaintiff Leroy Dyer through a temporary help agency to perform manual labor at Miami International Airport. After clockin…
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 Premises Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
B.E.T. Plant Services, Inc. appeals orders determining that it is not entitled to worker’s compensation immunity as a matter of law. We reverse.
Defendant B.E.T. Plant Services, Inc. (“employer”) hired plaintiff-appellee Leroy Dyer through a temporary help agency. For purposes of the worker’s compensation law, B.E.T. Plant Services, Inc. is the statutory employer of plaintiff. See § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). Plaintiff was hired to perform manual labor that was required on one of the employer’s jobs at Miami International Airport.
Plaintiff reported to work at the employer’s office. Plaintiff and other employees rode to the Miami International Airport work site in the foreman’s personal vehicle. At the conclusion of the work day, after plaintiff had “clocked out,” plaintiff boarded the rear of an employer-owned pickup truck for transportation back to the employer’s office. While still at the Miami International work site, plaintiff fell from the truck and was injured.
Plaintiff brought this civil action against the employer for personal injuries. The employer asserted worker’s compensation immunity. On the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the employer was not entitled to worker’s compensation immunity.
We respectfully disagree with the trial court on this point. Because the accident occurred while plaintiff was still on the work site at Miami International Airport, we conclude that the decision in Perez v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 673 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), applies here. Discussing the version of the worker’s compensation law which is applicable to this accident,1 this court said that the statute “included injuries occurring during a reasonable period of time before and after official working hours as long as the employee remained on the premises.” Id. at 939 (citations omitted); see also Vigliotti v. K-Mart Corporation, 679 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Here the work site was within a security area and the accident occurred within that area after the plaintiff had “clocked out” and was in the process of leaving the work site. We conclude that the employer is entitled to worker’s compensation immunity.2 In view of this ruling, we need not consider the employer’s alternative arguments for reversal based on Castillo v. Huell, 675 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Kennedy v. Fulghum, 159 Fla. 896, 32 So. 2d 919 (1947).
The orders under review are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
. The accident in this case occurred on October 1, 1992.
. Although this ruling is dispositive of the civil action, this ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff to assert a worker's compensation claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…nuine issues of material fact, trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment claiming workers’ compensation immunity reversed with directions to enter summary judgment for defendants); see also B.E.T. Plant Serv., Inc. v. Dyer, 678 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). If, on the other hand, an appellate court concludes that the trial court was correct in determining that a party is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law in the face of undisputed material facts, it wi…
-
Watson v. JOB Corp., 840 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ployer’s immunity from tort liability to work related injuries of employees obtained through a help supply services company and also applies to companies that hire workers through temporary employment agencies. See B.E.T. Plant Servs., Inc. v. Dyer, 678 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Caramico v. Artcraft Indus., Inc., 727 So. 2d 348, 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). It is undisputed that Nurse Finders supplied Job Corp. with temporary help and that Watson was an employee under Job Corp.’s direction and control a…
-
Fleming Cos., Inc. v. Moreira, 690 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…btained through a “help supply services company.” § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). Florida courts consistently interpret this statute to apply to companies hiring workers through temporary employment agencies. See B.E.T. Plant Services, Inc. v. Dyer, 678 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996); Parker v. State Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 649 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In Booher v. Pepperidge Farm, the Supreme Court of Florida granted immunity from a temporary employee’s tort suit where the tempora…
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
- Vigliotti v. K-Mart Corp. & KM Admin. Serv., 680 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Perez v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 673 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Kennedy v. Fulghum, 159 Fla. 896 (Fla. 1947)
- Castillo v. Huell, 675 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)