Narrative Opinion Summary
An accident on January 14, 1997, resulted in Appellant Paul Vincent Gerard being shocked and injured by a crane operated by an employee of Appellee Scott Crane Rental Corp., which had leased the crane to Appellant's employer for one day. Appellee sought summary judgment claiming its employee was a "borrowed servant" of Appellant's employer, thus immune from tort claims due to workers' compensation immunity under Florida Statute 440.11. The court emphasized that summary judgment requires conclusive evidence that no genuine issues of material fact exist, with all inferences favoring the opposing party. Upon reviewing the case, the court identified genuine issues of material fact regarding the borrowed servant status of Appellee's employee, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Judges Booth, Lawrence, and Davis concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Borrowed Servant Doctrine in Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the employee of Scott Crane Rental Corp. was a 'borrowed servant' of Appellant's employer, which would grant immunity from tort claims under Florida Statute 440.11.
Reasoning: Appellee sought summary judgment claiming its employee was a 'borrowed servant' of Appellant's employer, thus immune from tort claims due to workers' compensation immunity under Florida Statute 440.11.
Reversal of Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the summary judgment due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact concerning the borrowed servant status, necessitating further proceedings in the trial court.
Reasoning: Upon reviewing the case, the court identified genuine issues of material fact regarding the borrowed servant status of Appellee's employee, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is conclusive evidence that no genuine issues of material fact exist, and all inferences must favor the opposing party.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that summary judgment requires conclusive evidence that no genuine issues of material fact exist, with all inferences favoring the opposing party.