JAMES T. HART, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., 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.
Hart, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured by a National Airlines employee while loading mail. Hart sued National in negligence after receiving workers' compensation from his employer. The court affirmed summary judgment for National, holding that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy because National and Hart's employer were engaged in a common enterprise with mutual workers' compensation obligations.
Workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy for Hart's injuries. National Airlines is immune from the negligence suit because it had a contractual obligation to provide workers' compensation coverage, which extends immunity to the subcontractor in cases involving common employees injured during the shared enterprise.
“the essential requirement for immunity is the obligation on the part of the lessee (contractor) to provide Workmen's Compensation for his own employees and those of others employed on the job and falling within the common employment doctrine. Where such obligation exists, the immunity enjoyed by the contractor extends to the lessor (subcontractor) for injuries received by or caused by the common employees.”
Establishes the legal test for workers' compensation immunity in contractor-subcontractor relationships
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHart was employed by Dispatch Services, Inc., a subcontractor hired by National Airlines to load and unload cargo and mail. National exercised the sam…
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.
Hart, plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment for National Airlines, Inc. in a negligence action.
Hart was an employee of Dispatch Services, Inc. at the time he was injured. National had a contract with the United States government for the transportation of mail. Dispatch had entered into a written contract with National to furnish men to load and unload cargo and mail from its planes. National, pursuant to the terms of the contract, had the same supervision and control over Hart as it exercised over its own employees. While Hart was engaged in loading mail on a National plane, a National employee bringing additional mail to the plane in a jeep, ran over his foot. Hart made a claim for workmen’s compensation benefits against his employer, Dispatch, and the claim was paid. Hart then brought a negligence action against National seeking damages resulting from his injuries. National answered and moved for a summary judgment, with supporting affidavits. After a hearing and rehearing on the motion, the trial court entered the summary final judgment appealed herein.
The sole question involved herein is whether the provisions of Fla.Stat. §§ 440.-10 and 440.11, F.S.A., apply and, if so, whether they provide the exclusive remedy for Hart.
In Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., Fla., 216 So.2d 751 (Opinion filed December 10, 1968) the Supreme Court of Florida stated that ‘the essential requirement for immunity is the obligation on the part of the lessee (contractor) to provide Workmen’s Compensation for his own employees and those of others employed on the job and falling within the common employment doctrine. Where such obligation exists, the immunity enjoyed by the contractor extends to the lessor (subcontractor) for injuries received by or caused by the common employees.”
Here, National had a contract with the United States government to carry the mail; it subcontracted the loading and unloading of the mail to Dispatch; the employee of Dispatch [Hart] was injured by the employee of National while both were *901in the performance of loading and unloading the mail.
Under these circumstances, National was not a third party tort feasor and the remedy provided in the statute is exclusive. See Brickley v. Gulf Coast Const. Co., 153 Fla. 216, 14 So.2d 265 (1943) and 35 Fla. Jur. Workmen’s Compensation § 36.
The judgment herein appealed is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…court, applying section 440.10, held that a trucking company that had leased a truck was the statutory employer of the driver of the truck. Barrow v. Shel Products, Inc., 466 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also Hart v. National Airlines, Inc., 217 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969) (common carrier may be a statutory contractor where the record shows that the carrier is under a contract with a third person to transport goods for that third person); Southern Sanitation v. De…
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g v. Hatch, 617 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…at garbage disposal company was contractually obligated to provide services for municipalities, and was statutory employer, where injured claimant worked for uninsured company engaged to haul dirt and cover garbage); Hart v. National Airlines, Inc., 217 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (affirming statutory employer status of airline with federal contract to carry mail, where airline’s obligation to load and unload mail was sublet to dispatch service whose employee was injured). The E/C urged the JCC to construe…
-
Barrow v. Shel Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ard bearing the name Shelton Trucking. The paperwork was apparently handled by Shelton Trucking, which paid Elder 80% of what it received from the manufacturer. We find this case to be controlled by the holdings in Hart v. National Air Lines, Inc., 217 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. den. without opinion, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969), and Belford Trucking Company v. Pinson, 360 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellee argues that this court should affirm the deputy commissioner’s denial of the claim upon…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Normandy Beach Club, Inc. v. Milton Props., Inc., 153 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1943)
- Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 216 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1968)