Strickland v. Timco Aviation Services, Inc.

Citations: 66 So. 3d 1002; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10314; 2011 WL 2570775Docket: No. 1D10-4635

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 30, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was filed by Travis Strickland against a summary judgment in favor of TIMCO Aviation Services, Inc. and TRIAD International Maintenance Corporation regarding a personal injury case. Strickland, an employee of Joye Painting, was injured while working on a TIMCO-operated airplane hangar. He claimed that TIMCO was negligent for the indistinguishable skylights from the roof, their inability to support 200 pounds, and the absence of protective guardrails, violating OSHA standards. Strickland also alleged inadequate safety equipment, specifically a faulty safety harness.

TIMCO sought summary judgment, arguing that Strickland, as an employee of an independent contractor, was aware of the skylights and the risks of stepping on them, thus no negligence was attributable to TIMCO. The trial court granted this motion, determining that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that TIMCO owed no legal duty to Strickland. Generally, property owners are not liable for injuries to independent contractors' employees unless they actively control the work or create a dangerous condition. The court confirmed that TIMCO did not meet those exceptions, affirming the judgment in favor of TIMCO.

Liability may be imposed on a property owner for the actions of an independent contractor if the owner actively participates in or controls the work. For liability to arise from retained control, the owner must have sufficient supervisory rights, preventing the contractor from performing the work independently. In this case, Strickland claims that TIMCO's inspections and provision of safety equipment indicate control, but mere inspections do not equate to active control. Providing safety equipment also does not demonstrate direct participation in the work. 

Two exceptions to the general rule of non-liability exist: the first involves active participation or control, while the second concerns specific acts of negligence by the property owner. The latter can include negligently creating or approving a dangerous condition that results in injury to the contractor's employee. However, the property owner is only liable for unknown dangers or those not discoverable through due care. If the owner is aware of a danger, they must warn the contractor or ensure safety measures are in place. If the danger is obvious, there is no obligation to warn, and the owner will not be liable for injuries sustained by the contractor's employee. 

Additionally, if an employee is injured while accessing the premises rather than performing contracted work, liability is assessed under the standards applicable to business visitors or invitees, rather than under the contractor's scope of work.

In Ahl v. Stone Southwest, Inc., the court addressed the liability of a property owner for injuries sustained by an employee of an independent contractor while performing maintenance work. George Ahl, the employee, was injured after slipping on a floor covered in water, grease, and oil, which the property owner's employees had created while cleaning machines. Ahl reported the hazardous condition, but the property owner took no action to remedy it. The court reversed a summary judgment, highlighting the existence of a question regarding the property owner's negligence in creating and failing to address the unsafe condition.

Similarly, in Pertl v. Exit Information Guide, Inc., the court reversed a summary judgment concerning whether a property owner had a duty to warn an independent contractor's employee about dangerous skylights on a roof. The court noted that it was unclear if the property owner had constructive knowledge of the skylights or a duty to inform the contractor, as there was no evidence that the contractor was aware of them.

In contrast, in Morales v. Weil, the court found that a property owner had no duty to maintain a roof in a safe condition when an independent contractor was injured while demolishing it, as the injury arose from inherent hazards associated with the contracted work. The court reinforced that landowners can assume independent contractors possess the necessary skills to recognize and manage job-related dangers. This distinction emphasizes the varying duties owed by property owners to independent contractors' employees based on the nature of the work and the known hazards involved.

TIMCO hired Joye Painting to pressure wash the hangar roof and repair the skylights, specifically involving the application of a sealer compound, sealing panels with fiberglass, and using mesh tape with elastomeric sealer on the seams. Strickland claims TIMCO is liable for his injuries from falling through a skylight, alleging negligence based on two theories: TIMCO's approval of a dangerous condition and provision of defective equipment. Strickland argues the skylights were difficult to detect, but the contract required Joye Painting to be aware of their existence and condition, making it their responsibility to navigate around them. Strickland acknowledges knowing not to step on the skylights and had been warned by his supervisor, further indicating the risk was recognized. 

Strickland's claim regarding non-compliance with OSHA Regulation 29 C.F.R. 1910.23(e)(8) is flawed, as this general regulation is preempted by more specific construction industry standards in Part 1926. Additionally, the regulation cited pertains to walking-working surfaces, not skylights on roofs. Strickland's assertion that the skylights were defectively designed for not withstanding 200 pounds of pressure lacks merit because he fails to demonstrate TIMCO had knowledge of any latent defect. Consequently, Strickland’s arguments are rejected, and it is concluded that the danger posed by the skylights was obvious, with no duty on TIMCO's part to warn him of this inherent risk.

Strickland claims TIMCO was negligent by providing a safety harness without a rope grab and allowing Joye Painting's employees to use its man lift for roof access. Legal precedents indicate a property owner may be liable for negligence if they fail to provide reasonable care in supplying tools to independent contractors. Although there is disagreement over whether Strickland was wearing TIMCO's safety harness during the accident, there is no evidence suggesting that either the harness or the man lift were inherently dangerous or defective. Strickland argues TIMCO should have equipped the harness with a rope grab, but TIMCO had no obligation to provide such equipment. Furthermore, Mr. Joye was aware of the risks associated with using harnesses lacking rope grabs, and TIMCO had warned him about these dangers multiple times. Consequently, Strickland has not demonstrated that TIMCO was negligent, leading the trial court to properly grant summary judgment in TIMCO's favor. The court also noted that Joye Painting lacked workers' compensation coverage at the time of the accident and subsequently went bankrupt. Strickland's expert testimony regarding federal regulation applicability does not create a factual dispute, as it is a legal issue beyond the scope of expert opinion.