MILDRED H. WILLIAMS AND E. G. WILLIAMS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL LEVINE, D/B/A BIARRITZ VILLAS, 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.
The court held that the issue of the employer-employee relationship must be resolved to determine the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Law.
Plaintiffs sued the defendant owner of premises for personal injuries after a cornice fell on the wife. Plaintiffs alleged they were employees and the…
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 Employer-Employee Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from summary judgment for the defendant.
Appellants, husband and wife, sued for personal injuries -and damages received when a wooden cornice fell from a wall and struck the wife on the head. The premises in which the accident occurred were owned by appellee.
It was alleged in the complaint that ap-. pellants were employees of appellee, that appellee had three or more persons within his employment, and that he had failed to comply with the Workmen’s Compensation Law, F.S.A. § 460.01 et seq. These allegations were denied in the answer, but the court did not rule upon the questions thus raised pertaining to the employer-employee relationship.
In Hicks v. Kemp, Fla., 79 So.2d 696, we analyzed an almost identical situation and held that the issue of the employer-employee relationship must necessarily be resolved in such a case as this in order to determine whether or not the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law are applicable. And in that case, as in this, the defendant-appellee contended that no negligence on his part had been shown.
The judgment now before us must be, and it is hereby, reversed on authority of Hicks v. Kemp, supra, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith. See also Jones v. Brink, Fla., 39 So.2d 791, and Drahota v. Taylor Construction Co., Fla., 89 So.2d 16.
It is so ordered
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
McNARY v. Hudson, 110 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…ppeal that has not been made the subject of attack. Such procedure does not deposit the cause in this forum, there being no jurisdictional basis established for its consideration. The appeal will have to be dismissed. See Finley v. Finley, Fla.1958, 103 So. 2d 191; Klemenko v. Klemenko, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 11; and section 59.02 (2), F.S.A. Appeal dismissed. SHANNON, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Frank v. Amara, 235 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…ced by appellees in support of the motion direct [*538] this court’s attention to the body of cases holding that an appeal from an order denying a motion or petition for rehearing will not lie. Representative of such cases is Finley v. Finley, Fla., 103 So. 2d 191, and Young Adults for Progressive Action, Inc. v. B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc., Fla., 157 So. 2d 809. The rule elaborated upon in such cases is the controlling law of this jurisdiction. Were appellant’s notice of appeal directed to only that port…
-
Kaemmerlen v. Shannon, 119 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…PER CURIAM. This appeal is not from the final decree, but from the order denying the petition for rehearing. The appeal will have to be dismissed ex mero motu. Finley v. Finley, Fla.1958, 103 So. 2d 191; McNary v. Hudson, Fla.App., 1959, 110 So. 2d 73. Appeal dismissed. ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER and SHANNON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drahota v. Taylor Constr. Co., 89 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1956)
- Hicks v. Kemp, 79 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1955)