From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kite v. Escambia County

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 25, 2002
830 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

holding summary judgment precluded because of genuine issues of fact regarding employee's entitlement to sue under the unrelated works exception

Summary of this case from Taylor v. School Bd. of Brevard County

Opinion

Case No. 1D01-3245

Opinion filed November 25, 2002.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Kim A. Skievaski, Judge.

Mark A. Bednar, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Alison Perdue, Assistant County Attorney, Pensacola, for Appellee.


Appellant appeals a summary judgment granted on the basis that he, an employee of Appellee, could not sue Appellee under the "unrelated works" exception provided in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), and that his action is barred by workers' compensation immunity, as he failed to allege any negligence by a fellow co-worker doing unrelated work for Appellee. We reverse and remand.

Appellant was employed by Appellee as a correctional officer and, while supervising prisoners, visited Appellee's landfill with his prisoner crew to dispose of trash. While there, Appellant stepped on a loose tool left near the unloading ramp, causing him to fall down an embankment. His fall resulted in injuries to his neck, shoulder, back, and ribs. Appellant sought and received the full panoply of workers' compensation benefits. Then, Appellant filed suit against Appellee regarding his accident, alleging Appellee negligently maintained the landfill site and created a dangerous condition by permitting discarded tools in the unloading area, by not having guardrails and barricades around the embankment, and by failing to warn Appellant of a dangerous condition that Appellee was aware of or should have been aware of. Appellant did not designate an employee of Appellee as the perpetrator of any of the specific negligent acts and omissions. After discovery, Appellee moved for summary judgment, which was granted. This is reversible error.

An employee covered by workers' compensation insurance can sue an employer for the negligent acts of a fellow employee when such employee "is assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment." See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). This provision is not limited by section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1995), when applied to public employees. See Holmes County Sch. Bd. v. Duffell, 630 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Further, when such a suit is filed, it is unnecessary for a fellow co-worker to be named. See Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2001).

Here the trial court incorrectly applied these principles. There are genuine issues of fact in dispute regarding Appellant's entitlement to sue under the "unrelated works" exception to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), that preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, his action is not barred by workers' compensation immunity. Holmes, 630 So.2d at 639. Further, it is not fatal to Appellant's claim that he failed to name any specific fellow co-worker whom he alleged to be negligent. Juliano, 801 So.2d at 101.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ. CONCUR.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED


Summaries of

Kite v. Escambia County

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 25, 2002
830 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

holding summary judgment precluded because of genuine issues of fact regarding employee's entitlement to sue under the unrelated works exception

Summary of this case from Taylor v. School Bd. of Brevard County
Case details for

Kite v. Escambia County

Case Details

Full title:JAMES KITE, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Nov 25, 2002

Citations

830 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. School Bd. of Brevard County

See id. at 848. See also Kite v. Escambia County, 830 So.2d 961, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding summary…

Lluch v. American Airlines, Inc.

Applying this test to the facts before us, we believe that whether Lluch and Service were involved in…