189 So. 3d 928
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Escalera, owner of a subcontracting company, fell through a warehouse skylight and died while painting the roof; he was an employee of an independent contractor engaged by Shade Technology.
- Rolling Shield leased the warehouse from owner Sandel; both defendants (through their president Delgado) and Shade’s manager Echevarria warned workers about the skylights and supplied a harness and safety rope.
- Escalera knew of the skylights from prior visits; skylights were visually distinct and were explicitly warned about before work began; Escalera was not tethered when he fell.
- Fuentes (widow) sued Rolling Shield and Sandel for negligence, alleging failure to maintain, guard, or warn regarding the skylights and building-code violations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of duty as to an independent contractor’s employee and that any duty to warn was satisfied; the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants and struck plaintiff’s expert affidavit as legal conclusion.
- On appeal, the court affirmed: no duty existed under undisputed facts (neither control exception nor concealed-danger exception applied) and the affidavit was properly excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty to an employee of an independent contractor | Fuentes: defendants controlled/participated in work or failed to warn of non‑inherent concealed danger | Rolling Shield/Sandel: general rule shields owners from liability for independent-contractor employees; any duty to warn was discharged | No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether defendants exercised sufficient control to pierce independent-contractor shield | Fuentes: defendants supervised, supplied materials/equipment and observed work — enough control | Defendants: supplying materials, equipment, and limited observation is insufficient to show control of methods/operative details | No actionable control; control exception not met |
| Whether skylights were a concealed danger requiring a duty to warn | Fuentes: failure to maintain/guard skylights and code violations made danger non‑apparent | Defendants: skylights were open and apparent; workers knew of them and were warned; safety gear provided | Danger was open and apparent and Escalera knew; warning duty satisfied; warning exception not met |
| Whether the Zimmerman affidavit (building‑code opinion) was admissible | Fuentes: affidavit established code violations and defendant liability under Code | Rolling Shield: affidavit contained legal conclusions and invaded the court’s role on duty/liability | Affidavit properly struck as impermissible legal conclusions; exclusion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocamonde v. Marshalls of Ma, Inc., 56 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (duty in negligence is a question of law)
- Strickland v. TIMCO Aviation Servs., Inc., 66 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (owner liability exceptions for independent‑contractor employees)
- Armenteros v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 714 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (control and warning exceptions explained)
- Morales v. Weil, 44 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (extent of control required to pierce liability shield)
- Kayfetz v. A.M. Best Roofing, Inc., 832 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (expert may not testify to legal conclusions about plaintiffs' obligations under building code)