JEANNENE BALL, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN A. JIMENEZ, 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.
Ball, a housekeeper, sued Jimenez, an independent contractor's employee, for injuries sustained after slipping on mineral spirits he left on a kitchen floor. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that McCarty's property-owner immunity doctrine does not shield an independent contractor's employee from liability for his own negligence.
An employee of an independent contractor may be held liable in tort for his own negligence and is not protected by the McCarty doctrine, which applies only to claims against property owners/employers. Summary judgment was reversed because genuine issues of fact remain regarding Ball's knowledge of the condition and Jimenez's duty to protect others.
[1] An employee injured by a condition on the owner's property, which the employee was hired to correct, has no cause of action in tort against the employer/property owner.
[2] The McCarty line of cases, which addresses the duty owed by property owners to an employee, is inapplicable to an action brought by an employee against an employee of an…
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 employee is not seeking redress against her employer, the property owner who hired the independent contracting company. Rather, Ball has brought an action against Jimenez, an employee of the independent contractor, for his own negligence.”
Establishes the key distinction that Ball sued the contractor's employee rather than her employer, making McCarty inapplicable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBall was employed as a housekeeper by Sunrunner Apartments and was responsible for cleaning vacant apartments without discretion. Jimenez, an employee…
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 Comparative Fault cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Jeannene Ball appeals the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Dean Jimenez. We reverse because there are genuine issues of fact which preclude summary judgment.
Ball was employed as a housekeeper with Sunrunner Apartments. She was responsible for cleaning apartments after the tenants moved out. She was required to clean all the rooms, without discretion as to whether she believed the rooms needed to be cleaned.
Jimenez was an employee of an independent contracting company hired by Sunrun-ner Apartments to replace the vinyl flooring in the kitchen of one of its apartments. When Jimenez completed the work, he poured mineral spirits on the floor to clean it. He left the apartment with the mineral spirits on the floor. Ball, who entered the apartment pursuant to her cleaning duties, fell on the kitchen floor and was injured.
Jimenez argues that summary judgment was appropriate based on the principle set forth in McCarty v. Dade Division of American Hospital Supply, 360 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The court in McCarty held that an employee, who was injured through a condition on the owner’s property which the employee was hired to correct, has no cause of action in tort against the employer/property owner. See also Parrish v. Matthews, 548 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Echazahal v. El Toro Meat Packing Corp., 506 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
However, the McCarty line of cases is distinguishable from the present case. In this case, the employee is not seeking redress against her employer, the property owner who hired the independent contracting company. Rather, Ball has brought an action against Jimenez, an employee of the independent contractor, for his own negligence.
Because McCarty’s duty analysis addresses the duty owed by property owners to an employee, it is inapplicable to this situation. This case must be governed by ordinary tort principles. Under the tort principles of comparative fault, Ball’s knowledge of the condition and Jimenez’ duty to protect others from the condition are key factors. Heath v. First Baptist Church, 341 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 946 (Fla.1977). Because these factual issues remain, summary judgment was not appropriate.
The summary judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zelma Heath and Lawrence Heath v. First Baptist Church, 341 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- McCARTY v. Dade Div. OF Am. Hosp. Supply, 360 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Parrish v. Matthews, 548 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Manuel v. EIG Cutlery, Inc., 506 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Echazabal v. EL Toro Meat Packing Corp., 506 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)