|
...assumption liability without fault. Prior to 1978, although an employee entitled to workers' compensation benefits was barred from suing his or her employer in tort, the injured employee could nevertheless sue a fellow employee whose negligence had caused the injury. (2)
In 1978, [section] 440.11(1)was amended to extend the employer's immunity from tort liability to co-employees acting in furtherance of the employer's business. (3) This fellow employee immunity is qualified by two exceptions. It does not apply to a co-employee who acts with willful and wanton disregard, unprovoked physical aggression, or gross negligence. Nor does it apply when the employees "are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment." (4)
The statute does not define what the term "assigned primarily to unrelated works" means. (5) The unrelated works exception to workers' compensation immunity is unique to Florida. (6) Numerous appellate decisions have interpreted and applied the exception over the past 20 years. The courts have been fairly consistent in narrowly construing the exception so as not to undermine the statutory scheme of immunity as a quid pro quo for liability without fault. In the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent, however, the courts have employed different analytical approaches. Although the Supreme Court of Florida has recently addressed the unrelated works exception, a uniform analytical framework has yet to emerge. (7)
"Case-by-case" Approach
Most of the cases that have applied the unrelated works exception have followed what has been referred to as a "case-by-case" approach focusing on whether the employees are part of the same team or on the same project. The first case to consider the scope of the exception was Johnson v. Comet Steel Erection, Inc., 435 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In that case, an employee of a general contractor was injured as a result of the negligence of an employee of a subcontractor. Although their individual duties and skills were different (one was a laborer and the other was a welder), the court held that because they were "both employed on-site in the same construction project," their work was not unrelated, and the exception to immunity did not apply. Id. at 909.
The Second District cited Johnson in support of the same conclusion in Abraham v. Dzafic, 666 So. 2d 232,233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In holding that the unrelated works exception did not apply, the court noted that "Abraham and Dzafic were employees of the same contractor...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Florida Bar Journal
Understanding the testamentary effects of community property rules., January 01, 2005
Deposing nonhumans: corporate representative depositions in Florida., January 01, 2005
The Shadow of Justice.(Book Review), January 01, 2005
My Life Among the Serial Killers: Inside the Minds of the World's Most..., January 01, 2005
Skinny-Dipping.(Book Review), January 01, 2005
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
