EDDIE RHINES, APPELLANT,
v.
PLOOF TRANSFER COMPANY, 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.
Eddie Rhines, a longshoreman employed by McGiffin & Company, was injured while working on a tow motor leased from Ploof Transfer Company. On appeal from a second summary judgment in favor of Ploof, the court affirmed, holding that Rhines's exclusive remedy was workers' compensation from his common employer McGiffin, and that Ploof was not a third party against whom he could maintain an independent action.
Ploof is not a third party defendant against whom an independent action can be maintained. Under Florida law, McGiffin & Company was the common employer of both Rhines and the Ploof operator, and workers' compensation benefits from McGiffin constitute Rhines's sole and exclusive remedy.
[1] An employer who leases equipment and an operator from another company, and exercises direct supervision and control over both the equipment and the operator, may be consi…
[2] An employee injured while working for a common employer, even if the injury is caused by the negligence of a leased employee under the common employer's control, is gener…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[A]t the time and place of the accident here in controversy the plaintiff, Eddie Rhines, was a fellow employee in the eyes of the law of Sidney Elmore [Ploof's tow motor operator] (whose alleged negligence caused the accident and injuries complained of); that McGiffin & Company, Inc., the employer of the plaintiff, Eddie Rhines, was the 'common employer' of both Eddie Rhines and the said Sidney Elmore”
Establishes that the trial court found a common employer relationship making Rhines and Ploof's operator fellow employees
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGiffin & Company, a stevedoring and terminal operations company, hired Rhines as a longshoreman for the day. Because McGiffin lacked a tow motor cap…
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
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
On a previous appearance in this court, a summary judgment in favor of Ploof was reversed.1 The opinion in the prior appearance, after reciting the parties stipulation of facts, specifically observed that nothing in the record suggested that McGriffin & Company, Inc., leased the tow motor and operator for the purpose of performing any contract with any other entity. Upon remand, additional depositions were taken which were considered by the trial court, along with prior depositions (which were not submitted as a part of the record on the first appeal), and upon this record, the trial court again entered summary judgment in favor of Ploof; hence this appeal by Rhines.
The record before the trial court in the instant cause reflects that MeGiffin & Company, Inc., was engaged in the business of providing stevedoring services and terminal operations for shipping companies. On the date of the injury, Rhines was a longshoreman hired for the day to work for MeGiffin. Being without a tow motor capable of handling large containers (standard ocean shipping van), MeGiffin leased at an hourly rate a tow motor and operator from Ploof to accomplish the shifting of containers along dockside so they could be loaded aboard ship. The tow motor and operator were under the direct supervision and control of McGiffin. While riding on Ploof’s tow motor in assisting the operator, Rhines (McGif-fin’s employee) was injured as he alighted therefrom and instituted this common law action despite receiving workmen’s compensation.
The trial court, after reviewing the depositions and stipulated facts, concluded:
“. . . [A]t the time and place of the accident here in controversy the plaintiff, Eddie Rhines, was a fellow employee in the eyes of the law of Sidney Elmore [Ploof’s tow motor operator] (whose alleged negligence caused the accident and injuries complained of); that McGiffin & Company, Inc., the employer of the plaintiff, Eddie Rhines, was the ‘common employer’ of both Eddie Rhines and the said Sidney Elmore and was bound by the provisions of Sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes, to secure the payment of workmen’s compensation to both such ‘common employees’; that the collection of workmen’s compensation benefits from his employer, McGiffin & Company, Inc., was the sole and exclusive remedy of the plaintiff Eddie Rhines since, under the facts of this case, the defendant, Ploof Transfer Company, Inc. was not a third party against whom an independent action can be .maintained under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (see Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals [Fla.App. 3—1958] 105 So. 2d 578 and the cases cited therein; Gulf American Fire and Casualty Company v. Singleton [Fla.App. 2—1972] 265 So. 2d 720; Mack v. Cook & Pruitt Morony [Masonry], Inc. [Fla.App. 3—1965] 186 So. 2d 831; and Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc. [Fla.—1968] 216 So. 2d 751).”
After thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal as now presented, we agree.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . Rhines v. Ploof Transfer Company, Inc., 313 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The basic factual situation is detailed in our prior opinion and will not be repeated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. Wilson Welding Works, Inc., 370 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…t’s summary judgment holding Wilson Welding not subject to a common law action in tort because of the immunity provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I do not believe, however, that the majority’s reliance upon Rhines v. Ploof Transfer Company, 344 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) is dispositive of the issue raised by appellant. Paul McDonald, an employee of Steelcon, Inc., a structural steel contractor on a construction project in Jacksonville, Florida, was injured during the course of his employment when…1 / 2
-
Williams v. Corbett Cranes, Inc., 396 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…from suit and this immunity inures to the subcontractors. Powell v. Independent Construction Company, 396 So. 2d 725 (Fla.5th DCA 1981); Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals, 105 So. 2d 578 (Fla.3d DCA 1958). Accord, Rhines v. Ploof Transfer Co., Inc., 344 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert, denied, 357 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1978); Kolarik v. Rodgers Bros. Service, Inc., 268 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert, denied, 272 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1973). Because our interpretation of sections 440.10 and 440.11 immunizes thi…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Poston Equip. Rentals, Inc., 105 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Hunt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 216 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1968)
- Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Singleton, 265 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Mack v. Cook & Pruitt Masonry, Inc., 186 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Rhines v. Ploof Transfer Co., Inc., 313 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)