Metsker v. Carefree/Scott Fetzer Co.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10466
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Metsker injured at the 2008 Florida RV SuperShow at the Florida State Fairgrounds; event open to the public with admission and parking fees.
- Carefree manufactured RV awnings and contracted for display booths at the show; Booth Contract was signed by DRG employee David Jones on Carefree’s behalf.
- Carefree contracted with DRG for sales services and designated DRG as independent contractor in the Sales Rep Agreement; Carefree also staffed booth with other independent contractors.
- Carefree rented the booth, identified it with Carefree signage, and provided indemnity and insurance obligations to the FRVTA; DRG staffed the booth alongside Carefree’s own representatives.
- Pole fell and injured Metsker; DRG claimed Wally Ford was in control of the booth at the time; dispute over who controlled the booth and who was responsible for safety.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment to Carefree; on appeal, court reversed, holding issues of control and DRG’s status were genuine facts for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carefree had control of the booth overlapping with DRG’s role. | Metsker argues Carefree controlled the booth and thus owed a duty. | Carefree contends DRG was the independent contractor with no control by Carefree. | Issue of control material; genuine facts preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether DRG was an independent contractor or Carefree’s agent/employee. | Evolving evidence shows Carefree’s control factors; DRG may be agent. | Sales Rep Agreement states DRG is independent contractor. | Genuine issues of material fact on DRG’s status remain. |
| Whether there was a shared or exclusive control of the premises by Carefree and DRG. | Control by Carefree evidenced by booth rental, insurance, indemnity, staffing. | Control contested; DRG disputes influence. | Facts support potential joint control; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether Carefree owed a nondelegable duty of care as to premises safety despite contracting. | Control over premises triggers duty to keep safe. | DRG independent contractor eliminates duty. | Duty remains potential; issues of control and contractor status unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 426 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (control over premises determines liability for dangerous conditions)
- Lukancich v. City of Tampa, 583 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (city assumes control, creates duty of care)
- Craig v. Gate Mar. Props., Inc., 631 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (shared control does not relieve responsibility; duty may rest on more than one party)
- Worth v. Eugene Gentile Builders, 697 So.2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (joint duty when more than one party is under duty and one fails to perform)
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla.2001) (landlord/occupant duty to maintain premises for invitees)
- Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla.1966) (Restatement agency factors guide servant vs. independent contractor analysis)