Construction Accidents

Appellate Court Decides Not to Invoke Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

Published on: February 28, 2023 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, a plaintiff appealed his claims after he was denied damages in a suit relating to his sustained injuries from a heavy object being dropped onto his foot. The plaintiff attempted to hold Sunbelt, the loader’s owner, directly liable for his injuries. The complaint alleged that Sunbelt should be held liable for its negligent failure to require that the operators of its loaders be properly trained and should be vicariously liable for the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of the loader under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trial court sided against the plaintiff, which led the plaintiff to appeal.

In this case, the defendant is a licensed contractor who was hired for a clean-up job on private property. The plaintiff accompanied the defendant to the clean-up site and assisted the defendant with cleaning the debris. There were ramps placed inside a bucket attachment that the defendant brought to the cleanup site. After all of the debris was collected, the defendant directed the plaintiff to retrieve the ramps so that the defendant could drive the loader back onto the trailer. The defendant picked up the bucket attachment using the loader’s grapple and drove the loaders toward the trailer. The loader came to a complete stop, and the plaintiff approached the loader on foot and reached into the bucket attachment to retrieve the ramps from within the bucket. While doing so, the loader lurched forward unexpectedly, slipped from his grip, fell on his foot, and amputated two of his toes.

Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes harm to another. Under this doctrine, an owner who entrusts another to operate the motor vehicle has an obligation to ensure that the vehicle is operated safely. There is an exception to the doctrine, where the person entrusted with the vehicle injures another while both persons are using the vehicle. If this exception applies, the vehicle’s owner cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle. The exception applies when the individuals are “jointly operating and controlling the movement of the vehicle with common purpose and community interest of enterprise, with equal right to control and direct the conduct of each other.”

Florida Construction Worker Killed in Tragic Workplace Accident

Published on: September 23, 2022 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

As communities in Florida and nationwide continue to make investments in infrastructure and development projects, construction remains a powerhouse of industry in the state. Unfortunately, construction jobs can be hazardous for both the workers as well as members of the public. A 27-year-old construction worker was recently killed in an accident in Tampa Bay when a large concrete slab broke from a seawall and crushed the man.

According to a local news report discussing the tragedy, workers had been replacing a seawall in Port Tampa Bay when a piece of concrete broke apart, and a slab weighing approximately 3000 lbs fell month the worker. Emergency crews were called, but the worker was pronounced dead at the scene. The article does not contain many details, but it appears that negligence may have been a factor in the accident.

Florida workplace accidents caused thousands of injuries and deaths each year. People hurt or killed in such incidents can often pursue compensation for their injuries and loss by making a Florida workers’ compensation claim. Florida law requires most employers to maintain workers’ compensation insurance that covers losses related to workplace accidents. Workers’ compensation coverage may pay for medical bills, lost wages, and other economic damages related to their injury.

Florida Workplace Injuries Caused by Electrical Accidents

Published on: March 26, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

When someone is injured while on the job, Florida law sometimes allows a person to file a civil negligence suit against their employer for negligently putting them in a hazardous situation or otherwise causing their injuries from an accident. These suits, if successful, can result in significant monetary compensation to the employee, covering their injuries, lost wages, past and future medical bills, pain and suffering, and more. However, they can also be very difficult to win, especially when the defendant is a large company and has invested significant resources into their legal team. Because this is a complicated area of law, potential plaintiffs should consider working with a personal injury attorney to maximize their chances for success.

Recently, a federal appellate court considered a case which highlights the difficulties of bringing a suit after a workplace injury. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff worked for a construction company that was hired by an electric company to install, replace, and repair high voltage transmission lines. While working, the plaintiff climbed a pole to change out a wire and suffered an electric shock. As a result, he suffered serious burns to his hands, arms, and right leg, as well as brain damage. He ultimately had to have his left hand amputated and is now dealing with chronic pain and permanent disfigurement.

The plaintiff filed suit against the electric company, and the defendant company then filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed. The court found that the defendant electric company could not be held liable because they employed the construction company as an independent contractor. Generally, those employing independent contractors cannot be held responsible for injuries that happen in their work unless they had sufficient control over the independent contractors. Because the electric company left control to the construction company and only was concerned with the final product, not how the project was completed, the court found they could not be held liable.

Construction Zone Accident Results in $3 Million Verdict for Injury Victim

Published on: December 3, 2018 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Not long ago, a man who was injured after he was involved in an accident with a construction vehicle was awarded $3 million after a jury trial. In a recent opinion, an appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict.

The case presents several interesting issues for Florida truck accident victims, or those who have been injured in other Florida motor vehicle accidents. Most importantly, the case discusses how courts deal with arguments that the plaintiff shared blame in causing the accident that resulted in their injuries.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was driving in a construction zone when he came upon a stopped or slow-moving construction vehicle. The plaintiff decided to pass the vehicle by crossing the double-yellow line. However, as the plaintiff attempted to pass the construction vehicle, it made a sharp left turn, colliding with the plaintiff’s car.

Court Applies Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine to Construction Loaders

Published on: October 15, 2018 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent appellate decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that construction loaders are considered dangerous instrumentalities as a matter of law. As a result of the court’s opinion, Florida personal injury victims who have been injured by these dangerous machines can pursue a claim for compensation against the owners of construction loaders regardless of whether the owner was negligent.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff was seriously injured when he was working as an independent contractor for a hauling company. The hauling company had hired the plaintiff to help several employees clear a vacant lot that was full of vegetation and debris.

Evidently, the hauling company leased a large construction loader to help its employees and the plaintiff clear the lot. Apparently, while the lot was being cleared, an employee of the hauling company dropped a stump onto the plaintiff’s hand, requiring the plaintiff’s finger be amputated.

First Lawsuit Filed Following Florida International University Bridge Collapse

Published on: March 28, 2018 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Earlier this month, a pedestrian bridge at Florida International University collapsed, killing six and injuring nine others. While the cause of the collapse is still under official investigation, there were reports that one of the lead engineers noticed cracks in the bridge before it was even complete and reported the cracks to administration. However, nothing was done.According to one news report, one of the several people who were injured in the bridge collapse has recently filed a Florida personal injury lawsuit against several of the parties involved in the construction of the bridge, including the firm that designed it and the construction company charged with installing the bridge. Evidently, the recently filed case was brought by a man who was riding his bike near the bridge when it collapsed.

The lawsuit claims that as the bridge collapsed, a motorist swerved to avoid either the falling bridge or another motorist and struck the man while he was on his bicycle. As a result of the collision, the man sustained serious injuries.

Stacking of Inferences in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: January 24, 2014 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Stacking inferences is impermissible in Florida personal injury cases, but a defendant may not frame a single inference as multiple inferences in order to defeat a plaintiff’s claim. In a recent case that illustrates this point, a Florida appellate court considered a single-vehicle accident that happened on a part of Interstate 95 that a construction company was contracted to resurface.

The case arose from an accident at dusk. It had been raining most of the day and was raining at the time of the accident. Another driver witnessed the accident, which started in the far left passing lane. The witness thought the plaintiff’s car, which was traveling in that lane, was going too fast for the rainy weather. The witness saw a sheet of water on the road and saw the car go sideways in the air. When he was cross-examined on this point, he stated he wasn’t sure whether there were puddles. The plaintiff’s car landed in the grass by the right lane.

A few minutes after the accident, a state trooper arrived. The plaintiff was taken to the hospital. Later the trooper testified at a deposition that there was standing water in the far right lane. His report included a diagram, which suggested the plaintiff lost control of the car when it touched standing water.

Potential for Fracking Operations in Florida Presents Concerns of Silica Inhalation

Published on: March 27, 2013 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Legislation was recently introduced by a state representative that would require industries to report the chemicals injected into the ground while fracking in Florida. Currently there is no fracking operation in Florida, although there has been recent speculation that fracking would begin in South Florida near other oil and gas operations. Fracking is a technique used to stimulate oil and gas production by forcing water through the ground at high pressures. The process has been scrutinized for its potential to damage the environment and expose workers to silica inhalation.

Silica and asbestos exposure can cause serious damage to the exposed person. Asbestos was a form of insulation commonly used in construction because of its sound absorption and ability resist fire, heat, and electrical damage. Silica is a material found in several types of rocks that are frequently used in construction. Both are tiny particles that can remain in the lungs once inhaled, accumulating and causing scarring and inflammation. This affects the exposed person’s ability to breathe and often results in serious illness like mesothelioma.

Employers of construction businesses are obligated to maintain their workers’ health and safety, including exposure to silica or asbestos. If they fail to use ordinary and reasonable care on the work site, and either fail to warn employees of potential harm or neglect to maintain a work site that minimizes exposure, the employer or owner may be liable for injuries the employees suffer. Manufacturers of products that contain silica or asbestos may also be liable for injuries suffered due to product defects. The product itself may be considered unsafe, and inadequate warnings or instructions for safe use may be absent. Safety products themselves that are designed to protect you from silica or asbestos exposure may also fail, creating a breach in the manufacturer’s obligation to provide a safe product.

Florida legislation determines who can file an asbestos or silica related claim. A plaintiff must show that physical impairment was a result of a medical condition to which exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor. Extensive medical documentation is required by a qualified medical professional. Medical examiners assess the impairment rating of the individual’s lung capacity. There must also be proof of the injured’s substantial occupational exposure to asbestos.

Florida Court of Appeals Allows Construction Worker to Sue Fellow Subcontractor for Gross Negligence

Published on: March 7, 2013 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeals recently issued two opinions in one case, Villalta v. Cornn Intl., that assessed whether workers’ compensation statutory immunity applied to a contractor and subcontractor. A construction worker was finishing drywall when his ladder slipped into a cutout left by other subcontractors. He fell through the cutout and died from his injuries, and the personal representative of his estate brought suit against the contractor and all subcontractors tied to the project.

A Florida construction contractor hired two subcontractors, one for drywall installation, and one for HVAC installation. The drywall subcontractor hired their own subcontractor to do the finishing. The sub-subcontractor employed the deceased plaintiff. The cutout that caused the plaintiff to fall was made by the HVAC subcontractors, who did not warn the other subcontractors of its presence or use the proper guidelines to ensure safety of the area. Workers’ compensation was available to the deceased’s workers family, but they elected to also pursue a personal injury action against all liable parties.

Florida’s workers’ compensation is a state-mandated insurance fund designed to provide injured workers or their families with the compensation they need when an employee is injured or killed at work. Because compensation is ensured, Florida also grants immunity to employers unless they committed an intentional tort, and to fellow subcontractors unless there was gross negligence. When the injury or death occurs on a construction site, the relationships are assessed to determine which statutory immunity applies, if at all.

The Court decided that the contractor was immune from a personal injury suit because they were in a vertical relationship, defined in Mena v. J.I.L. Construction Group, Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Barker, and also Dempsey v. G & E 3Construction Co. The only exception to immunity is when an intentional tort (when someone has been hurt purposefully) has occurred, and the Court ruled that it didn’t exist in this case. The HVAC subcontractor is also granted immunity, however the exception is merely gross negligence (willful and wanton misconduct) instead of an intentional tort.

After litigation began, the HVAC subcontractor moved for summary judgment, arguing that they are entitled to immunity. The trial court initially agreed, but the Florida Court of Appeals looked at the facts and ruled that it was for a jury to decide whether or not the events that led to the employee’s death were gross negligence or standard negligence. The deceased employee and his representative now get to move forward in the personal injury suit against the HVAC contractor.

Injured Florida Worker Denied Opportunity to Hold Negligent Employer Liable

Published on: February 7, 2013 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals recently echoed a lower court’s ruling that prevented an injured Florida man from holding his employer directly liable for his construction accident injuries. Florida grants immunity to employers since employees are covered under mandatory workers’ compensation insurance. Workers cannot pursue personal injury claims against the employer unless they fall under the narrowly tailored exception. In this case, the court maintained that the worker did not show the employer knew of the danger from prior occurrences, that he himself was unaware of any dangers, and that the employer actively misled the worker of the project’s safety.

The worker was employed by a construction contractor who was installing a nine-ton wall on the day of the accident. Safe installation of that size of wall depends heavily on favorable weather conditions and cannot be performed if the wind speeds are too high. Prior to the accident, the installation had been delayed due to high winds over 20 mph. On the morning of the accident the winds were determined to be safe enough to proceed. Testimony from the general foreman and one of the crane operators differed from each other. The foreman testified that he radioed to the crew and informed them of 16-18 mph winds, but the crane operator recalled being informed the winds were 12-15 mph. The injured worker provided conflicting accounts, some indicating that he was concern with the windy condition, but didn’t know what it was and nonetheless relied on wind speed confirmation from the general foreman.

The Court looked to the last 13 years of case law and legislative action surrounding the immunity exception and pointed out that no employee has been able to show with virtual certainty that the employer committed an intentional tort. Since the Court had to view the case in a light most favorable to the employer, the employer only had to show that none of the elements of the immunity exception existed. The Court conceded that even if they accepted the worker’s version of the installation, the employer would only be grossly negligent and not liable for an intentional act.

Workers’ compensation benefits are determined by a calculation that factors in the worker’s impairment rating, the regular wage of the worker at the time of the accident, and the cost of medical care and related costs, among other things. Benefits are calculated with statutorily-created multipliers, and may be capped at 104 weeks. The amount of compensation can differ greatly depending on whether the worker is deemed temporarily disabled or permanently disabled.

A personal injury claim of the same or similar matter will likely calculate the same types of costs like medical care and lost wages. However, unlike worker’s compensation, the negligent party may also have to pay for pain and suffering or punitive damages, depending on the level of egregious behavior.