THE GRAND UNION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PRUDENTIAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORP., 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.
Grand Union, a supermarket owner sued for a slip-and-fall injury, filed a third-party complaint against Prudential Building Maintenance Corp., its janitorial contractor, seeking indemnity for breach of duty to maintain safe floors. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint, but the appellate court reversed, holding that an employer may recover indemnity from an employee or contractor when the employee's negligence breaches an agreement and proximately causes injury.
The court held that indemnity may be recovered between joint tortfeasors where one has breached an agreement with the other and such breach constituted the proximate cause of the injury. An employer may recover indemnity from its employee or contractor based on the contractor's active negligence when the contractor breaches its contractual duty to perform services safely.
“indemnity may be recovered between two joint tortfeasors where one has breached an agreement with the other and such breach constituted the proximate cause of the injury”
Establishes the core legal principle permitting indemnity recovery when a contractual breach proximately causes injury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA slip-and-fall accident occurred in a supermarket owned by Grand Union. At the time, Prudential Building Maintenance Corp. was employed by Grand Unio…
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 Third Party Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant stood as defendant below in a personal injury action filed against it by individual plaintiffs. Thereafter, the appellant filed a third party complaint against the appellee here, and appellee moved to dismiss the third party complaint. The motion was granted and this appeal ensued.
The original personal injury complaint arose from a slip and fall accident which occurred in a supermarket owned by the appellant. At the time of the accident, the appellee corporation was employed by appellant to perform janitorial services on the premises of the store where the injury occurred; such services included keeping the floor of the store clean and in a safe condition. The third party complaint which was filed against the appellee alleged that a cause of action existed against the third party defendant by virtue of such defendant’s breach of the duty to keep the store floor in a reasonably safe condition and free from all foreign substances. The third party complaint continued its allegations in these words:
“5. That if any foreign substance was on the floor of said store, and had been on said floor for a period of time sufficient to give Third-Party Defendant notice thereof, then it was the duty of the Third-Party Defendant to clean up said foreign substance and Third-Party Defendant breached this duty in failing to clean up the foreign substance and/or allowing a dangerous condition to remain on the floor of said store.
“6. That as a result of Third-Party Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiffs have filed suit against the Third-Party Plaintiff herein seeking damages, and Third-Party Plaintiff has been forced to defend said suit and retain attorneys for the defense of said suit.
“WHEREFORE, Third-Party Plaintiff demands judgment against Third-Party Defendant in a sum equal to the amount of any judgment entered against it in favor of Plaintiffs, together with costs and attorney’s fees.”
By this appeal the appellant argues that the trial court erred when it rejected the theory underlying the third party complaint, i. e., that a principal or employer is entitled to recover indemnity from its agent or employee because of damages for which said principal or employer may be liable, but which were incurred as a result of the negligence of the agent or employee.
We find merit in the contention of the appellant. In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. J. C. Penney Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 211, the court therein collected numerous cases from Florida which sustained a trial judge in holding that indemnity may be recovered between two joint *119tortfeasors where one has breached an agreement with the other and such breach constituted the proximate cause of the injury. Id at 215. It appears to us, therefore, on the authority of the above case, that the appellant did state a viable cause of action in its third party complaint against the appellees. The identical theory, expressed above, was sustained in allowing an employer to recover indemnity from its employee because of the employee’s active negligence in the case of Olin’s Rent-A-Car System v. Royal Continental Hotels, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 349.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, the order being appealed is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Stewart, 427 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…mmon law] indemnity against his negligent independent contractor hired to discharge the nondelegable duty.” Wetherington, Tort Indemnity in Florida, 8 Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 383, 408 (1980), citing, Grand Union Co. v. Prudential Building Maintenance Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); din’s Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Royal Continental Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1966); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. J.C. Penney Co., 166 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); see also…
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. & Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc. v. Kellman, 375 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…policy is an employer’s policy and, although the employer is responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer is entitled to indemnity against a negligent employee. See Grand Union Company v. Prudential Building Maintenance Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Patriot’s policy is an owner’s policy and, as stated above, an owner is entitled to indemnification from a negligent permittee. We do not find a basis for a different decision in Continental’s argument that because its policy is…
-
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Soper, 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…d DCA 2001). Because, as demonstrated in that opinion, Carnival cannot be held vicariously liable in this case for Soper’s negligence, we agree that there is no basis for the indemnity claim. Compare Grand Union Co. v. Prudential Bldg. Maint. Corp., 226 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Olin’s Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Continental Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1966). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 166 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Olin's Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Cont'l Hotels, Inc., 187 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)