Bechtel Corp. v. Batchelor
250 So. 3d 187
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Richard Batchelor, an FPL instrument/electrical technician, worked at Turkey Point from 1974–1980 and was later diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma in 2015. Major alleged cause: asbestos exposure at Turkey Point and from other activities (brake repair, drywall sanding).
- Batchelor sued multiple defendants; by trial only Bechtel and Foster Wheeler remained. Batchelor pursued a premises-liability theory against Bechtel (not a products claim against it): that Bechtel exercised possession/control of areas of Turkey Point and therefore owed invitee duties to warn and protect.
- Bechtel had built the plant and performed extensive maintenance under multi-year service agreements, logging over 1,050,070 man-hours at Turkey Point in the relevant period; FPL remained the owner and directed day-to-day work and work orders.
- Discovery dispute: Batchelor moved for sanctions after Bechtel’s corporate representative depositions; trial court granted an adverse-inference jury instruction for Bechtel’s alleged failure to locate and produce retired former employees.
- At trial, medical causation testimony tied Batchelor’s disease to cumulative asbestos exposures, including time at Turkey Point, but did not tie exposure specifically to acts by Bechtel. The jury returned a large verdict, assigning 60% fault to Bechtel.
- On appeal the court addressed two issues: (1) whether the adverse-inference instruction was an appropriate discovery sanction, and (2) whether evidence was sufficient to show Bechtel had possession/control of the premises such that premises liability could be imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse-inference jury instruction for alleged failure to prepare corporate rep (Rule 1.310(b)(6)) | Bechtel failed to reasonably prepare its corporate witness and failed to locate/produce retired employees; jurors may infer missing testimony would be unfavorable. | Bechtel argued it had no obligation to expend extraordinary effort (e.g., mail postcards to decades-old retirees) absent a court order and that the sanction invaded the jury’s province. | Reversed sanction. Court held adverse-inference instruction was improper absent prior court order compelling such extraordinary discovery; sanction was not justified and invaded jury province. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of possession/control for premises liability | Batchelor argued Bechtel’s pervasive presence, contracts, million+ man-hours, overhaul work, trailers on-site, and insurance provisions supported an inference Bechtel shared control of areas where asbestos exposure occurred. | Bechtel argued FPL retained ownership and direction; contracts did not transfer possession/control of premises, and evidence was at most speculation and insufficient for a jury finding. | Reversed judgment for plaintiff. Court held record lacked direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence that Bechtel had the right to control or exclude others from the premises; plaintiff failed to carry burden—directed verdict should have been granted for Bechtel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan ex rel. Shealey v. Masters, 821 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (adverse inference instructions invade the jury’s province and are strong medicine)
- Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (example of extreme discovery abuse justifying adverse inference)
- Carriage Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc., 109 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (corporate representative must be prepared from reasonably available sources)
- Saewitz v. Saewitz, 79 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (sanctions for discovery are inappropriate absent an order compelling discovery)
- Chmura v. Sam Rodgers Props., Inc., 2 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (party not previously ordered to provide discovery cannot be sanctioned for noncompliance)
- Worth v. Eugene Gentile Builders, 697 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (one who assumes control of premises assumes duty to invitees; multiple parties may share responsibility)
- Brown v. Suncharm Ranch, Inc., 748 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (duty arises from right to control access to premises)
- Haynes v. Lloyd, 533 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (premises-liability focus is actual possession/control, not legal title)
- Regency Lake Apt. Assoc., Ltd. v. French, 590 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (control is typically a fact question for the jury)