ANNALEE EL SHORAFA AND WALEED EL SHORAFA, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERBURN RUPRECHT ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
This appeal addresses the liability of contractors for injuries caused by defects in completed work. The court affirmed summary judgment for the contractor, holding that under Florida law, a contractor remains liable for latent defects unknown to the owner but is exonerated if the defect was patent or known to the owner.
A contractor remains liable for latent defects unknown to the owner even after project completion and acceptance. However, the contractor is exonerated if the defect was patent or if the owner knew of it and failed to rectify the condition, making the owner liable instead.
[1] A contractor is exonerated from liability for negligence for injuries to third parties occurring after the contractor has completed the work and the owner has accepted it…
[2] If a defect in completed and accepted work is patent or known to the owner, the owner's negligence in failing to rectify the condition is the proximate cause of any subse…
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“if the offending defect was latent and unknown to the owner, the contractor remained liable, even after the project was completed and accepted by the owner”
Establishes the core rule that latent defects keep contractors liable despite completion and acceptance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants El Shorafa were injured due to a defect in construction work. A contractor had completed the project and the owner accepted the work. The q…
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.
DOWNEY, Judge.
This appeal involves the applicability of the rule which exonerates a contractor from liability for negligence for injuries to third parties occurring after a contractor has completed his work and turned the project over to an owner who accepts the work.
In Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1959), the Supreme Court of Florida considered the respective liability of an owner and contractor for injuries to a third person for negligence of the contractor in the construction of the improvement. The court held that, if the offending defect was latent and unknown to the owner, the contractor remained liable, even after the project was completed and accepted by the owner. The rationale of that holding is that the contractor’s negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. The Slavin court held, however, that if the defect were patent or if the owner learned of it and did not rectify the condition then the owner’s negligence is the proximate cause of the injury rendering the owner liable and exonerating the contractor. Appellant urges this court to depart from “the anachronistic” holding of Slavin because it was decided eighteen years ago, and “the modern trend” is to equate the liability of contractors with that of manufacturers in products liability cases. However, while conceding the persuasiveness of appellant’s argument, we do not perceive it to be our function to attempt a departure from rules announced by the Supreme Court of Florida, though they be several decades old. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). In addition, the holding of the Slavin case has been followed, or at least recognized, in a number of more recent cases, such as Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 205 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1968); Green Springs, Inc. v. Calvera, 239 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1970); Hutchings v. Harry, 242 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As recently as June 1976, the First District Court of Appeal stated in Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So. 2d 298, 299-300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976):
“When an owner accepts work from a contractor, that upon reasonable inspection would reveal a dangerous defect, he has the duty to make the work safe. Thereafter, if a third person is injured, it is the owner’s failure to perform his duty which is the proximate cause of the injury. However, the owner cannot be held liable ‘. . . where the dangerous condition is one which is not discoverable by inspection’. Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1959).”
Accordingly, we decline to depart from the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Florida in Slavin v. Kay, supra, and we affirm the summary judgment appealed from.
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Slavin v. Sanford KAY, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1958)
- MAI KAI, Inc. v. Mary Colucci and her husband, 205 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1967)
- Green Springs, Inc. v. Green, 239 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1970)
- Forte Towers S., Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Roman SPA, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hutchings v. Harry, 242 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)