388 So.3d 1044
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2024Background
- Claudio Navarro, an employee of Star Brite Group, Inc., was injured after falling from a roof while securing a tarp at a construction site.
- Navarro alleged that Alfredo L. Borges, president of Star Brite, ordered him to secure the tarp and failed to provide necessary safety equipment.
- Borges, in his role as president, was said to have directed Navarro both initially and the day prior to the incident to cover the roof.
- Navarro and two coworkers discussed Borges’ order and planned to address the tarp issue the following morning, after which Navarro suffered his injury.
- Navarro filed suit against Borges and Star Brite, claiming breach of duty to provide a safe workplace; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Borges.
- Navarro appealed, arguing there was evidence of Borges's active involvement that precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borges ordered Navarro to secure the tarp, creating a duty to provide safety equipment | Navarro claims Borges affirmatively directed him to secure the tarp, with corroborating deposition testimony, and failed to provide safety equipment | Borges claims there was no evidence he directed Navarro on the day of the incident and thus had no duty to provide safety equipment | Court found factual disputes and reversed summary judgment |
| Whether Borges’s conduct constituted active negligence, supporting personal liability | Navarro asserts Borges’s personal involvement ("programming" the work) rises to active negligence | Borges argues at most passive negligence (mere failure to act), insufficient for individual liability | Court found evidence of active involvement sufficient to proceed |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment where factual disputes exist | Navarro claims deposition and circumstantial evidence raise genuine issues of material fact | Borges argues evidentiary record does not create true material disputes | Court held summary judgment improper due to disputed material facts |
| Interpretation of "programmed" as indicating affirmative direction | Navarro testifies "programmed" means Borges actively directed the work | Borges suggests the term is too vague to show active involvement | Court interprets "programmed" in context as supporting an inference of affirmative act |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; a genuine dispute exists if evidence allows a reasonable jury verdict for the nonmovant)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must designate specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial)
- White-Wilson Med. Ctr. v. Dayta Consultants, Inc., 486 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (corporate officers can be personally liable for torts committed in their roles)
- Cannon v. Fournier, 57 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (contractors have duty to provide a safe work site and can be liable for dangerous conditions they create or approve)