DONALD E. COMER AND JUNE COMER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CESAR RODRIGUEZ 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.
The Comers appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim against Merlin, Inc. for injuries sustained when an employee of an independent contractor (Rowland Truck Equipment) was struck by a truck chassis owned by Merlin and operated by another contractor employee. The court affirmed, holding that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not apply when an owner contracts with an independent contractor and the contractor's employee is injured by the owner's equipment operated negligently by another contractor employee absent the owner's own negligence.
The dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not apply when a defendant owner contracts with an independent contractor for performance of inherently dangerous work and the contractor's employee is injured by the owner's dangerous instrumentality operated negligently by another contractor employee, provided the owner was not negligent.
[1] A landowner is not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the negligence of an independent contractor's employee when the landowner is not actually negligent and the i…
[2] The doctrine of nondelegable duty regarding inherently dangerous work does not impose liability on a defendant owner when the owner is not actually negligent and the inju…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“liability flowing from operation of the doctrines of dangerous instrumentalities and inherently dangerous work is subject to the exception that where the defendant owner contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of inherently dangerous work and the latter's employee is injured by a dangerous instrumentality owned by the defendant which is negligently applied or operated by another employee of the independent contractor but wholly without any negligence on the part of the defendant owner, the latter will not be held liable”
Establishes the legal exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine that applies to this case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMerlin, Inc. contracted with Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. to fabricate and mount a truck body to a truck chassis. Donald Comer and Cesar Rodriguez, b…
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 Independent Contractor Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, Donald and June Comer, appeal an adverse final summary judgment in favor of Merlin, Inc. and its liability insurer in this action for damages for injuries sustained as a result of the negligent operation of a vehicle owned by Merlin. The judgment was entered for the reason that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine is not applicable in this case.
Defendant-appellee, Merlin, Inc., contracted with Rowland Truck Equipment, Inc. to fabricate and mount a truck body to a truck chassis. The actual task of mounting the truck body to the chassis was assigned to Donald E. Comer and defendant Cesar Rodriguez, both employees of Rowland. During this procedure, Comer sustained serious injuries when he was struck by the chassis operated by Rodriguez. Comer and his wife filed a complaint against Rodriguez, Merlin and their liability insurers alleging that Rodriguez was driving the chassis with the consent and permission of its owner, Merlin. Following pretrial discovery, Merlin and its liability insurer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine is not applicable to the instant case and they are not liable. The motion was heard and the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of Merlin and its insurer. We affirm.
Our Supreme Court in Florida Power and Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293, 298 (Fla.1964) has laid out the exception to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine as follows:
“We hold that liability flowing from operation of the doctrines of dangerous instrumentalities and inherently dangerous work is subject to the exception that where the defendant owner contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of inherently dangerous work and the latter’s employee is injured by a dangerous instrumentality owned by the defendant which is negligently applied or operated by another employee of the independent contractor but wholly without any negligence on the part of the defendant owner, the latter will not be held liable. The incidence of the independent contractor and injury to his employee in the course of the performance of the inherently dangerous work absent any negligence on the part of the contracting owner absolves the latter from liability.”
The facts of this case fall squarely within this exception. Cf. Fry v. Robinson Printers, Inc., 155 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Petitte v. Welch, 167 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 172 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1965); Schaffer v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 280 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 23 (Fla.1973).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1964)
- Emil Petitte v. Welch, 167 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- FRY v. Robinson Printers, Inc., 155 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Schaffer v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 280 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- State v. Childers, 285 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1973)
- Hall v. State, 285 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1973)
- Petitte v. Welch, 172 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1965)
- State Ex rel. Magnolia Improvement Co. v. Sturgis, 172 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1965)