WAYNE MILLER AND JUDY MILLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES ALDRICH AND FERRAN ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1997-01-03
No. 96-928
PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.
685 So. 2d 988 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1997) Caution
Cited by 12 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the record failed to establish any breach of duty owed by the defendants to the plaintiff, nor any explanation for why the plaintiff fell from the ladder.


Headnotes

[1] A plaintiff must establish a reason for their fall from a ladder and a link between the fall and a breach of duty owed by a defendant to recover damages for injuries sust…

[2] The fact that an accident occurred does not, in itself, establish a breach of duty or causation.

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

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff, Wayne Miller, was injured when he fell from a ladder while helping his son-in-law, Aldrich, install an HVAC system in Aldrich's home. A…

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.


Opinion of the Court
W. SHARP, Judge.

W. SHARP, Judge.

Wayne and Judy Miller, husband and wife, appeal from an adverse final summary judgment in a negligence suit brought by them against James Aldrich and Ferran Engineering Group, Inc.. They sought to recover damages for the severe physical injuries suffered by Wayne when he fell from a ladder. We affirm because the record fails to establish any breach of a duty owed to Wayne by either appellee, and any reason or explanation for why Wayne fell from the ladder. In this case, the facts of what happened were not in dispute. Aldrich had contracted to build a private residence for himself and his wife with Holiday Builders of Deltona, Florida, on land they owned in Lake Helen, Florida. He was a refrigeration, heating and cooling technician with Ferran and had been a licensed journeyman for seven years. Holiday agreed to allow Aldrich to install the HVAC system in the house, and to pay him the amount allotted in the contract price for that work.

In order to obtain a residential building permit from Volusia County, Holiday had to provide a license number of a HVAC contractor. Aldrich did not have such a license. As an accommodation to Aldrich, a manager of Ferran obtained approval to use Ferran’s license number. Ferran’s Class A Certified Air Conditioning Contractor License number was furnished to Holiday, which used it to obtain the residential permit from Volusia, listing Ferran as the subcontractor on the project.

Ferran had no other connection or contact with this project other than assisting Aldrich in selecting appropriate equipment, ordering it, and having it delivered to Ferran’s facility. Aldrich did the HVAC work on his own house on his own time, and Ferran was not to be paid for any woi’k done by him on that project, nor did Ferran authorize Aldrich to hire any other person to work with him on it.

Wayne Miller is Aldrich’s father-in-law. He asked Aldrich if he wanted some help on the HVAC work. Aldrich knew Miller was fifty-seven years old, a diabetic, had spells of disorientation, and had never been a licensed contractor or certified in any construction trade. He also had not installed or sealed duct work.

Aldrich instructed Miller on four consecutive days, on how to wrap and seal ducts and how to cut and assemble pieces of duct work. Miller performed this last task while standing on an eight-foot step ladder. On the last day, his job was to seal the seams by applying a coating of mastic over the joints, with a paint brush. In order to reach the ducts, then located three, feet above the ten-foot ceiling, he had to use a step ladder. Aldrich did not specifically instruct Miller on how-to use the ladder. But, Miller testified in his deposition that he knew more about using ladders than Aldrich did. On the day before the accident, Aldrich saw Miller standing on the top step of the ladder and walking the ladder (shimmying the ladder side to side while standing on it, in order to move it). Aldrich knew both uses of the ladder were dangerous and improper. He warned Miller about such practices.

On the day of the accident, Miller opted to paint the seams of the ducts, and to use an eight-foot ladder rather than a ten-foot one. Aldrich told Miller to let him know when Miller needed to go to lunch, and if he did not feel well, to get off the ladder and relax. No one, including Miller, could say why Miller fell from the ladder. Aldrich did not see Miller fall, and Miller said “I have no idea of what happened.” Due to the position in which he fell, on top of the ladder, and the severe injuries he suffered, Miller apparently fell from near the top of the ladder. Based on this record, if Aldrich and/or Ferran owed Miller a duty to exercise reasonable care in doing what they did, there is no suggestion as to how they breached that duty and thus no suggestion as to how that unknown breach proximately caused Miller’s injuries. This is the necessary consequence of not being able to suggest a reason why Miller fell from the ladder in the first place. The fact that an accident occurred does not, in an ordinary case, establish breach of a duty by another party, or causation. See Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp., 676 So .2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Adkins v. Economy Engineering Co., 495 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981); Hurst v. Astudillo, 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McCormick Shipping Corp. v. Warner, 129 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

Miller had the initial burden of establishing why he fell from the ladder, and some link between his fall and a breach of a duty owed him by one of the appellees, or that his mere fall was inferentially attributable to a failing on the part of one or both of the appellees. These things are totally lacking-in this case. Thus the trial judge was correct in refusing to send such a case to the jury and disposing of it by a final summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Smith v. Grove Apts., LLC, 976 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …cisions outside of the landlord/tenant relationship. See e.g., St. Lucie Harvesting and Caretaking Corp. v. Cervantes, 639 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(premise liability against grove owner by employee of independent contractor); Miller v. Aldrich, 685 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(premise liability action against private homeowner); Ortiz v. Lorie, 921 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(same); Hurst v. Astudillo, 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Quintanilla v. Coral Gables Hosp., Inc., 941 So. 2d 46…
    1 / 2
  • Clark v. Polk Cnty., 753 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
    …ous at all. Outside the relatively rare circumstances implicating the principle of res ipsa loquitor, it is well-settled that the mere occurrence of a mishap does not prove that the mishap resulted from tortious conduct. See e.g., Miller v. Aldrich, 685 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Here, the County proved only that a motorist drove over the stop sign. Its evidence left open the question of why — did the motorist act tortiously? Or was he or she forced off the road by another vehicle? Or did he or she swerv…
  • Jairo Ortiz v. Lorie, 921 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …ed. However, Lorie’s reliance on those cases is misplaced because in most of these cases, there was no evidence of a defect in the ladder, as there is in this case. See, e.g., Portal v. Asencio, 824 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Miller v. Aldrich, 685 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Hurst v. Astudillo, 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McCormick Shipping Corp. v. Warner, 129 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Therefore, they are not controlling of the outcome in this case. For the foregoing reasons, we revers…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw