ROBERT H. MATTHEWS, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF DALE HARLER, JR., AN INCOMPETENT, APPELLANT,
v.
G. S. P. CORPORATION 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.
Robert Matthews, as guardian of injured employee Dale Harler Jr., appealed a summary judgment dismissing his tort claim against Harler's employer for willful and wanton negligence in maintaining a work platform. The court affirmed, holding that an employee who accepts workers' compensation benefits cannot subsequently sue the employer for the same injury by recharacterizing it as a tort rather than an accident arising from employment.
The employee cannot recover tort damages once he has elected to accept workers' compensation benefits for the same injury, even if he alleges willful and wanton negligence, as this violates the conclusiveness of remedy doctrine embedded in the workers' compensation system.
[1] An employee who accepts benefits under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment cannot subsequently claim furth…
[2] The Florida Workmen's Compensation Act provides exclusive remedies to employees for injuries sustained during the course of employment, regardless of employer or employee…
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“An employee may not elect to declare his injury to have been an accident occurring in the course of his employment and, thereafter, repudiate such position by alleging that the place and conditions of his employment were so dangerous that the injury was not in fact an accident.”
Establishes the core doctrine preventing inconsistent positions—the conclusiveness of remedy principle.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDale Harler Jr. was employed by Geiger Corporation and was injured when he fell from a high-rise platform during condominium construction. The steel c…
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 Willful And Wanton Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
MELVIN, Judge.
Appellant-plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment entered upon his fifth amended complaint seeking to state a cause of action against defendant-Geiger Corporation. Dale Harler, Jr. was employed by the Geiger Corporation, and the Royal Globe Insurance Company was the carrier for such employer. Harler was injured while working on a high-rise platform incident to the construction of a condominium. The plaintiff alleged that in connection with the maintenance and inspection of the high-rise platform from which he fell, the Geiger Corporation had been guilty of willful and wanton negligence in failing to provide a safe place for him to work and in failing to observe obvious defects in the steel cables that supported the platform. It is alleged that because one of the steel cables deteriorated, over a period of time, and broke, Harler fell to the ground causing him to sustain substantial physical injury. Nowhere in the pleading does Harler allege that his employer intentionally inflicted upon him an injury.
Following the injury sustained by Harler, he filed his claim for benefits under Florida Workmen’s Compensation Act, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, alleging his right for recovery of benefits for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him as a result of an accident happening during the course of his employment. Compensation pursuant to Florida law was paid to the claimant by the insurance carrier. Plaintiff urges that because of the alleged willful and wanton negligence of the employer in providing an unsafe place for the claimant to work at such a high-level area and failure to provide inspection of and correction of the deterioration of the steel cables, he should be permitted to recover damages for such alleged tort, such damages to be subject only to offset in the amount of workmen’s compensation funds he has received.
An employee may not elect to declare his injury to have been an accident occurring in the course of his employment and, thereafter, repudiate such position by alleging that the place and conditions of his employment were so dangerous that the injury was not in fact an accident. Such position is contrary to the conclusiveness of remedy doctrine embodied in the workmen’s compensation system. The provisions of the act may not be accepted and then repudiated by the employee. Mullarkey v. Florida Feed Mills, Inc., 268 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1972).
Florida Workmen’s Compensation Act is an enactment that assures to every employee the full benefits provided therein regardless of whether the employer or employee is guilty of negligence in bringing about the accident causing the injury. The act further reflects the policy of the state to designate and define for the employer the responsibilities that will come to rest upon its shoulders to thus mark the limit of its liability.
Plaintiff, having established that he was entitled to the benefits of Chapter 440 because he received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that he did receive benefits as provided by such law, may not now be permitted to claim further damages upon his allegation that his injury, in fact, was not an accident within the contemplation of the law.
The final summary judgment appealed from is
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Chorak v. Naughton, 409 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)….1963). However, a plaintiff who asserts that his injury was the result of an accident and recovers benefits under the Act cannot later claim that his injury was not the result of an accident within the Act’s contemplation. Matthews v. G.S.P. Corp., 354 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In Matthews the court stated that to allow a subsequent claim after receipt of compensation benefits is contrary to the exclusiveness of remedy doctrine embodied in a workers’ compensation system. We agree with the rationale of…
-
Pearson v. Harris, 449 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ntage and to Hume’s disadvantage. Thus, Hume’s election matured when judgment was entered finally adjudicating the rights of the parties. He was precluded thereafter from pursuing his worker’s compensation claim. See also, Matthews v. G.S.P. Corp., 354 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), in which we held that the provisions of the act “may not be accepted and then repudiated by the employee.” We conclude that since Western’s liability to Pearson, to the extent of the coverage provided by the insurance poli…
-
Velez v. Oxford Dev. Co., 457 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…. Florida Feed Mills, Inc., 268 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1972), appeal dismissed, 411 U.S. 944, 93 S.Ct. 1923, 36 L.Ed.2d 406 (1973) (employee, by his voluntary act, chose to bind himself to provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law); Matthews v. G.S.P. Corp., 354 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (employee may not elect to file workers’ compensation claim and then file a tort action repudiating earlier position). Coney v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 425 So. 2d 171 (Fla.2d DCA 1983), also cited by the employe…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mullarkey v. Fla. Feed Mills, Inc., 268 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1972)