66 So. 3d 1002
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Strickland, employee of Joye Painting, sues TIMCO and TRIAD for injuries from fall through a skylight while painting a hangar roof.
- Joye Painting had a contract with TIMCO to pressure wash the hangar roof and repair/maintain skylights on TIMCO’s premises.
- Strickland alleges TIMCO negligence due to skylights’ indistinguishable appearance, poor load-bearing capacity, and lack of guardrails, plus inadequate safety equipment.
- TIMCO moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty owed to Strickland and that Strickland was an independent contractor’s employee who knew of the skylights’ existence.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for TIMCO; Strickland appeals.
- On appeal, the court affirms, applying Florida law on independent contractor duties and business invitee standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TIMCO owed duty to Strickland as owner to an independent contractor’s employee. | Strickland argues TIMCO’s control or dangerous condition exposure creates duty. | TIMCO contends no duty because employee was with independent contractor and danger was open/obvious. | No triable issue; TIMCO owed no duty. |
| Whether TIMCO’s inspection or safety equipment constitutes active control creating liability. | TIMCO’s inspection and provision of a harness/manair lift show control. | Inspection and equipment provision do not equal active control over Joye Painting’s work. | No liability from control; no active supervision. |
| Whether the dangerous condition doctrine applies to a skylight open and apparent to an independent contractor’s employee. | Skylights presented a dangerous condition requiring warning or remedy. | Hazard was open/obvious given contractor’s duties; no duty to warn beyond work scope. | Open/obvious hazard; no duty to warn is imposed. |
| Whether the risk posed by the skylights falls within the contractor’s risk or was a separate business invitee duty. | Injuries occurred during access to work; should be under invitee duty. | Work-related hazards fall under independent contractor framework, not invitee duty. | Work-related risk governed by contractor-rule; no invitee duty applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lomack v. Mowrey, 14 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (summary judgment standard; no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Goldberg v. Florida Power & Light Co., 899 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2005) (duty in negligence is a question of law)
- Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 851 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (summary judgment in negligence; duty analysis)
- Ahl v. Stone Southwest, Inc., 666 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (exceptions to no-duty rule for independent contractors)
- Pertl v. Exit Information Guide, Inc., 708 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (business invitee duty where danger on premises known)
- City of Miami v. Perez, 509 So.2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (active control requires supervision over contractor's work)
- Skow v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (inspection does not equal control)
- Robinson v. Florida Power & Light Co., 68 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1953) (owner duty when danger known or otherwise duty to warn)