RUDOLPH ROBERTS AND BRENDA ROBERTS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DACRA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, LTD., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this slip-and-fall case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for a building owner against an air conditioning repair contractor who was injured when he slipped on construction debris on a dark second floor. The court held that an independent contractor at a construction site must anticipate construction materials and less favorable working conditions, and therefore the owner owed no duty to warn of the pipes that caused the injury.
The court held that an independent contractor working at a construction site must anticipate the presence of construction materials and less favorable working conditions. The owner owed no duty to warn of the pipes, which were discoverable through reasonable inspection of the work area, particularly given the contractor's responsibility to provide adequate lighting for his own work.
[1] An independent contractor entering a construction site must anticipate the presence of construction materials and less favorable working conditions.
[2] A property owner owes no duty to provide lighting or warn an independent contractor of darkness when the lighting condition is obvious and the contractor is responsible f…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 an independent contractor goes to a construction site, he must anticipate that there may be construction materials on the premises, and that working conditions on the site may be less favorable than would be true once the work has been completed.”
Establishes the foundational duty principle for independent contractors at construction sites
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRudolph Roberts, an air conditioning repair person, was dispatched to repair an air conditioning unit in a building owned by Dacra Design Associates. …
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 Reasonable Inspection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rudolph Roberts and Brenda Roberts appeal an adverse summary judgment in a slip and fall case. We affirm.
Plaintiff-appellant Rudolph Roberts was an air conditioning repair person who was dispatched to repair an air conditioning unit in a building owned by defendant-appellee Dacra Design Associates, Ltd. Plaintiff had never been to the building before. The lights were not working, but the first floor was illuminated by light coming in from the windows.
Plaintiff observed that the building appeared to be under construction. There was debris on the ground floor including wood and pipes. The second floor, where the air conditioning unit was located, had no windows and was dark. Plaintiff set up a shop light and a ladder next to the air conditioning unit, and began work. When he descended from the ladder and stepped to the floor, he slipped on a length of pipe about six inches long and three and one half inches around. He fell and was injured.
It turned out there were numerous pieces of similar pipe lying about the second floor. The plaintiff had not seen them because the second floor was dark. Plaintiff sued the owner for negligence.*
For purposes of the summary judgment proceeding, the plaintiff conceded that the defendant owed no duty to provide lighting, or to warn the plaintiff that the second floor was dark. Plaintiff argued, however, that the owner should have warned that there were construction items on the second floor where the air condi tioning unit was located. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant owner and the plaintiff has appealed.
When an independent contractor goes to a construction site, he must anticipate that there may be construction materials on the premises, and that working conditions on the site may be less favorable than would be true once the work has been completed. The plaintiff in this case concedes that the lighting condition was obvious and that it was his responsibility to provide the lighting necessary for the work. With that concession, we do not see a basis for imposing liability on the owner. The pipes were there to be seen upon any reasonable inspection of the work area. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406, 411 (Fla.1963); Arauz v. Truesdell, 698 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Kagan v. Eisenstadt, 98 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957).
Affirmed.
*
Brenda Roberts made a claim for loss of con-sorlium.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strickland v. Timco Aviation Servs., Inc., 66 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…r readily ascertainable, the property owner is under no duty to warn and will not be held liable for injuries sustained by the employee of an independent contractor in performing work under the contract. See Roberts v. Dacra Design Associates, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (property owner not liable for injury to repairman on construction site who fell on a piece of pipe lying on the ground because repairman should have anticipated the presence of construction materials and could have discover…
-
Fuentes v. Sandel, Inc., 189 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ascertainable, the property owner is under no duty to warn- and will not be held liable- for injuries sustained by the employee- of an independent contractor- in performing work under-the-contract.” Id. (citing Roberts v. Dacra Design Assocs., Ltd., 766 So. 2d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)) (holding that a property owner was not liable when a repairman fell on a piece of pipe lying on the ground because the repairman could have discovered the dangers of construction materials lying on the ground with the exerc…
-
Skala v. Lyons Heritage Corp., 127 So. 3d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…to trip was open and obvious to him. As such, the duty to warn is not at issue in this case. It is for this same reason that the cases relied on by the trial court in granting summary judgment are inapplicable. See Roberts v. Dacra Design Assocs., 766 So. 2d 1184, 1184-85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (concluding that property owner of a building under construction had no duty to warn a plaintiff hired to repair an air conditioning unit in the building on a floor with no windows or working lights where the plaintiff wa…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1953)
- Kagan v. Eisenstadt, 98 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Arauz v. Maybelline P. Truesdell, 698 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)