MICHAEL ZENCHAK, APPELLANT,
v.
RYDER TRUCK RENTALS, INC., 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.
A worker injured while unloading a truck leased by his employer from Ryder Truck Rentals appeals summary judgment dismissing his negligence action. The court upheld the dismissal based on workers' compensation immunity, finding Ryder was not a third party against whom an independent action could be maintained under Florida's Workmen's Compensation Act.
The court held that Ryder is not a third party against whom an independent action can be maintained because the truck was leased to the employer, operated by the employer's employee, and used as part of construction machinery. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not overcome workers' compensation immunity in these circumstances.
“the pivotal question here is whether or not the defendant Ryder is a third party against whom an independent action can be maintained under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes”
Establishes the central legal issue on appeal regarding third-party liability under workers' compensation law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZenchak was injured while supervising a construction job for the Mackle Company on the company's own property. To unload heavy steel beams from a flat…
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 Common Employer cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in a negligence action against the defendant, Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., appeals a summary final judgment. There is no dispute as to the material facts, and the trial court found the defendant immune from suit by reason of § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which is a part of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.1
The plaintiff was injured while supervising a job for his employer, the Mackle Company, which was constructing a bridge on its own property. As a necessary part of the job, plaintiff and those working with him were required to unload some heavy steel beams from a flatbed truck. The method used was to attach a cable to the beams and pull them off of the flatbed truck by use of power supplied by a second truck. The second truck was leased by the Mackle Corn-*728pany from the defendant, Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.
In the process of unloading, the rented truck was being driven by another Maclde employee. This employee negligently allowed the truck to lurch forward so that plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff received Workmen’s Compensation from his employer.
The trial judge held as a matter of law as follows: • '
“Stripped of excess verbiage the pivotal question here is whether or not the defendant Ryder is a third party against whom an independent action can be maintained under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
"In the court’s judgment this question must be resolved in the negative. The case of Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals, Inc., Fla.App. (1958), 105 So.2d 578, expressly controls * *.
******
“Actually, the case at bar would seem to be even stronger than the Smith case, supra. This is so because in the Smith case, the operator of the leased vehicle was an employee of the defendant-lessor, which is not true here. In addition in the Smith case, the court was required to develop a theory by which the injured party and the operator of the vehicle in question were ‘statutory fellow servants’ as a premise to the result reached; whereas in the instant case the injured plaintiff and the operator of the vehicle in question were in fact fellow servants under a common employer.
“In the face of these authorities the court reluctantly concludes that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Appellant’s contention upon appeal is-that the owner of the truck is vicariously liable because of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applicable to automobiles, regardless of the provisions of §§ 440.10 and! 440.11. We do not think this is true because the truck in question was leased by the defendant to plaintiff’s employer, was-being operated by the lessee’s employee, and was being used as a part of the construction machinery.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Freddy R. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1966)…sor for which liability may be imposed under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. “In reaching the conclusion that Ryder was not liable the trial judge relied upon the decision of this court in Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 727. On that appeal we affirmed a judgment of the trial court holding that the owner of a rental truck was not vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine where a fellow servant of the driver was injured by the truck. We find no reas…1 / 2
-
Iglesia v. Floran, 394 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1981)…hat Florida law bars suits against the owner of a rental vehicle leased by an employer who has paid workmen’s compensation benefits, relying on Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1966), and Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 150 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), cert. discharged, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1964). On the basis of those cases, the trial judge granted summary judgment for Hertz Corporation and against Iglesia’s personal representative. In seeking to recover against Floran, Iglesi…
-
Zenchak v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1964)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Poston Equip. Rentals, Inc., 105 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)