CARLOS TINOCO, APPELLANT,
v.
RESOL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND CASE POWER EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Carlos Tinoco, an assistant pipe fitter, sued his employer Resol, Inc. for a work-related foot injury caused by a defective excavator, claiming an intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employer's conduct constituted negligence rather than intentional tort.
The court held that the employer's conduct did not meet the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity. The facts demonstrate negligence, and negligence or even gross negligence is insufficient to overcome workers' compensation immunity; the employer must have exhibited a deliberate intent to injure or engaged in conduct substantially certain to result in injury or death.
[1] Workers' compensation immunity bars claims against an employer for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, unless the employer exhibits a deliberate inte…
[2] An employer's knowledge of a defect in equipment and failure to immediately repair it, without more, does not constitute conduct substantially certain to result in injury…
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“exhibite[d] a deliberate intent to injure or engage[d] in conduct which is substantially certain to result in injury or death”
This quote establishes the legal standard required to overcome workers' compensation immunity under the intentional tort exception
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTinoco worked for Resol as an assistant pipe fitter and was injured when struck by a defective excavator on trial at the work site. The machine had 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conduct Substantially Certain To Result In Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carlos Tinoco appeals a summary judgment in favor of his employer, Resol, Inc., on the basis of workers compensation immunity. We affirm.
Plaintiff-appellant Tinoco worked for Resol as an assistant pipe fitter when he was injured in an accident. On the day of the accident, a Resol crew was digging a trench and installing pipe in it. A new excavator had been delivered to the work site for Resol to use on a trial basis to determine whether to buy it.
The new machine had a defect which caused it to lurch forward two or three feet each time the operator sought to move it. After the initial lurch, the machine would operate properly.
The foreman reported the defect and asked for mechanics to come and repair it. He concluded that in the meantime it would be safe to use the machine so long as the employees stayed more than three feet away from the front of the machine.
The foreman testified that all of the employees were warned about this, whereas the plaintiff denies being personally warned. However, it is undisputed that the operating malfunction was obvious to all who were working in the vicinity of the machine, and the plaintiff was working close to the machine from eight o’clock in the morning until two o’clock in the afternoon during which time the machine was moved twenty-six or twenty-seven times.
On the occasion of the accident, the plaintiff stepped in front of the machine to assist with pipe which was being lowered into the trench. The location into which the plaintiff stepped was in the blind spot of the operator, so that the operator could not see the plaintiff. As the plaintiff stepped in front of the machine, a pipe fitter in the trench signaled for the machine to move forward. The machine struck the plaintiffs foot, crushing it.
Plaintiff brought suit against Resol under the intentional tort exception to the workers compensation immunity. See Turner v. PCR Inc., 754 So. 2d 688, 686 (Fla.2000); § 440.11, Fla. Stat (1993).* We concur with the trial court that the facts of this case do not show that the employer “ exhibite[d] a deliberate intent to injure or engage[d] in conduct which is substantially certain to result in injury or death.” Turner, 754 So. 2d at 687 & n. 4 (citation omitted; emphasis in original). Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the circumstances here demonstrate negligence. But under the case law, a showing of negligence, or even gross negligence, is not enough. Id.
The summary judgment is affirmed.
*
The accident date was January, 1995.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstates Fireproofing, Inc. v. Garcia, 876 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…e the power lines or to tell their workers they had failed to do so, though serious and resulting in tragic consequences, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort required to invoke the Turner exception. Id. Likewise, Tinoco v. Resol, Inc., 783 So. 2d 309, (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), held that even though the employee alleged that he was never warned about a defect that caused an excavator to lurch forward when moved, the defect was obvious to all working in the vicinity of the machine. The injury in Tinoco…
-
Bourassa v. Busch Ent. Corp., 929 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…89 (Fla.2005); Allstates, 876 So. 2d at 1226 (noting that Alstates did not attempt to conceal the dangers of scaffolding and did not prevent the employee from making an informed decision whether to expose himself to the risk); Tinoco v. Resol, Inc., 783 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting that the defect in the machine that injured the employee was obvious to everyone working around it and that therefore there was no evidence of deliberate indifference by the employer). These cases rely on the supreme court…
-
Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 927 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…who was killed when attacked by the youths he was overseeing, was not advised that they had been assessed as flight risks, or that one of the youths had recently made violent threats to the life of the other. By contrast, in Tinoco v. Resol, Inc., 783 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), a case involving no cover up or deception, this court concluded that while the circumstances demonstrated negligence, and perhaps even gross negligence, the employer’s actions did not rise to the level of an intentional tort. In…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence