STEPHEN VARGO, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. CARTER, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1966-06-29
No. 277
SMITH, C. J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.
188 So. 2d 402 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1966) Caution
Cited by 6 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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant, who leased a truck and driver to a general contractor, was a subcontractor and not a third-party tortfeasor, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's injuries.


Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff, an employee of a general contractor, was injured by a dump truck leased from the defendant, who also supplied and paid the driver and m…

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
ANDREWS, Judge.

ANDREWS, Judge.

The plaintiff, Stephen Vargo, appeals summary final judgment for the defendant, Robert L. Carter.

Plaintiff, an employee of McDonald Construction Co., the general contractor, seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained from a dump truck leased by the owner, Carter, to the general contractor at $6.00 per hour. Carter paid the driver and maintained the truck during the term of the lease.

The truckdriver’s duties were limited to hauling rock fill at the direction of the general contractor from a pit several miles away to the jobsite.

F.S.A. § 440.10(1) provides that every employee of a contractor or subcontractor coming within the provisions of said chapter shall be covered by workmen’s compensation insurance. F.S.A. § 440.11 provides that the exclusive remedy of employees injured on a job as a result of the negligence of other employees of a contractor or subcontractor is under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Laws. Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 1940, 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690.

Plaintiff contends that the defendant is merely a materialman and therefore falls within the exception to the rule announced in the Younger case. We are of the opinion that defendant was not a materialman supplying material for direct incorporation into the project as was the case in Gold-stein v. Acme Concrete Corporation, Fla. 1958, 103 So.2d 202.

The trial court was correct in finding that defendant was a subcontractor and not a third party tort-feasor against whom an action could be maintained. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla.1966, 182 So.2d 422.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Singleton, 265 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
    …, Fla.1968, 216 So. 2d 751. . Fla.1958, 103 So. 2d 202. . Jones v. Florida Power Corp., Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 285; Foulk v. Perkins, Fla.App.2d 1966, 181 So. 2d 704. . Smith v. Ussery, Fla.1972, 261 So. 2d 164. . Vargo v. Carter, Fla.App.4th 1966, 188 So. 2d 402; Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, Fla.1950, 48 So. 2d 840; Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 1940, 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690.…
  • Holley v. A. G. Wimpy and/or A. G. Wimpy Co., Inc., 192 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
    …he materialmen have been held to have been third party tort-feasors. See, e. g., Goldstein v. Acme Concrete Corp., 103 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1958). In the instant case the defendant was clearly not a materialman but a sub-contractor. Cf. Vargo v. Carter, 188 So. 2d 402 (D.C.A.Fla.1966). For these reasons the trial court was correct in entering summary final judgment in favor of defendant company, and we affirm. PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.…
  • Shirley v. Asbell, 197 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
    …dence presented to the jury which, if believed, as it apparently was, supported the defendant’s contention that he was a subcontractor. The result thusly reached by the jury was consistent with recent rulings of our sister courts in Vargo v. Carter, 188 So. 2d 402 (Fla.App. 4th, 1966), and Holley v. Wimpy, 192 So. 2d 508 (Fla.App.2d, 1966), in which the provisions of Sections 440.10 and 440.11 were invoked in attempted third party actions against subcontractors engaged in the same general enterprises as the p…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw