Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fisher v. SHENANDOAH GEN. CONST. CO.
Citations: 472 So. 2d 871; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1751Docket: 84-2142
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 17, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court
In the case of John E. Fisher and Lily May Fisher, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Shaun E. Fisher, Deceased, v. Shenandoah General Construction Co., the District Court of Appeal of Florida addressed whether allegations of intentional tort could bypass the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The trial court dismissed the action, affirming that the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Law prevails. The facts detail that the employee was directed by his employer to clean an underground pipe using a high-pressure hose, leading to his death from methane gas exposure. The complaint asserted that the employer was aware of the danger, intentionally exposed the employee to it, failed to provide safety equipment, and disregarded OSHA regulations. The court assumed, for the sake of the opinion, that the allegations could constitute an intentional tort. However, it emphasized that Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), states that an employer's liability is exclusive and replaces all other liability, thus protecting employers from tort claims. The statute does permit actions against co-workers for willful and wanton disregard or gross negligence but does not extend this exception to employers. The court noted that the legislative intent underlying the Workers' Compensation Law is to remove employers from tort liability, reinforcing that the employer’s immunity is foundational to the Act. The court concluded that the statute does not differentiate between levels of negligence concerning an employer’s immunity, and thus the Workers' Compensation Law serves to limit actions against employers, even in cases of alleged intentional torts. The statute defines "injury" as arising from accidents during employment, thereby excluding intentional torts, which are inherently non-accidental. However, the implications of the statute are complex, prompting the court to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether the Florida Workers' Compensation Law prevents employees from suing their corporate employers for intentional torts sustained within the scope of employment. The court distinguishes relevant Florida cases cited by the employee based on specific circumstances: injuries outside the scope of employment, co-employee perpetration of intentional torts, lack of workers' compensation coverage due to employer defunct status, and individual lawsuits against corporate officers. The court also notes a concern about potential circumvention of the statute through claims against individual officers for intentional torts, indicating that such claims would be valid outside the scope of employment.