JAMES KITE, APPELLANT,
v.
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2002-11-25
No. 1D01-3245
BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ. CONCUR.
830 So. 2d 961 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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.

Synopsis

A correctional officer injured at a county landfill while supervising a prisoner crew sued his employer for negligence after receiving workers' compensation benefits. The court reversed a summary judgment dismissing the case, holding that the employee stated a valid claim under the 'unrelated works' exception to workers' compensation immunity and that he was not required to name a specific co-worker as the negligent party.


Holding

The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the employee's case qualifies under the 'unrelated works' exception to section 440.11(1), precluding summary judgment, and that it is not fatal to the claim that no specific co-worker was named as the negligent party.


Headnotes

[1] An employee covered by workers' compensation may sue their employer for the negligent acts of a fellow employee assigned primarily to unrelated works.

[2] The "unrelated works" exception to workers' compensation immunity is not limited by section 768.28, Florida Statutes, when applied to public employees.

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

Key Quotes

“An employee covered by workers' compensation insurance can sue an employer for the negligent acts of a fellow employee when such employee 'is assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment.'”

Establishes the statutory 'unrelated works' exception to workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11(1)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Kite was employed by Escambia County as a correctional officer. While supervising prisoners at the county landfill, Kite stepped on a loose tool left …

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
BROWNING, J.

BROWNING, J.

Appellant appeals a summary judgment granted on the basis that he, an employee •of Appellee, could not sue Appellee under the “unrelated works” exception provided in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), and that his action is barred by workers’ compensation immunity, as he failed to allege any negligence by a fellow co-worker doing unrelated work for Appel-lee. We reverse and remand.

Appellant was employed by Appellee as a correctional officer and, while supervising prisoners, visited Appellee’s landfill with his prisoner crew to dispose of trash. While there, Appellant stepped on a loose tool left near the unloading ramp, causing him to fall down an embankment. His fall resulted in injuries to his neck, shoulder, back, and ribs. Appellant sought and received the full panoply of workers’ compensation benefits. Then, Appellant filed suit against Appellee regarding his accident, alleging Appellee negligently maintained the landfill site and created a dangerous condition by permitting discarded tools in the unloading area, by not having guardrails and barricades around the embankment, and by failing to warn Appellant of a dangerous condition that Appellee was aware of or should have been aware of. Appellant did not designate an employee of Appellee as the perpetrator of any of the specific negligent acts and omissions. After discovery, Appellee moved for summary judgment, which was granted. This is reversible error. An employee covered by workers’ compensation insurance can sue an employer for the negligent acts of a fellow employee when such employee “is assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment.” See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).

This provision is not limited by section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1995), when applied to public employees. See Holmes County Sch. Bd. v. Duffell, 630 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Further, when such a suit is filed, it is unnecessary for a fellow co-worker to be named. See Florida Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla.2001).

Here the trial court incorrectly applied these principles. There are genuine issues of fact in dispute regarding Appellant’s entitlement to sue under the “unrelated works” exception to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), that preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, his action is not barred by workers’ compensation immunity. Holmes, 630 So. 2d at 639. Further, it is not fatal to Appellant’s claim that he failed to name any specific fellow co-worker whom he alleged to be negligent. Juliano, 801 So. 2d at 101.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ. CONCUR.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Taylor v. Sch. Bd. OF Brevard Cnty., 888 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2004)
    …entered summary judgment in favor of the supervisor, but the district court reversed, remanding the cause for further proceedings to determine whether the co-employees were engaged in related works. See id. at 848. See also Kite v. Escambia County, 830 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding summary judgment precluded because of genuine issues of fact regarding employee’s entitlement to sue under the unrelated works exception). Both decisions were also correctly decided on the facts presented. [*10] Log…
  • Lluch v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 899 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
    …fact issue which precluded summary judgment. See Lake v. Ramsay, 566 So. 2d 845, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(holding that, because there were factual disputes, the issue could not appropriately be resolved by summary judgment); Kite v. Escambia County, 830 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(summary judgment precluded because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding employee’s entitlement to sue under the unrelated works exception). In reaching this conclusion, we are persuaded by Justice Lewis’ concur…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw