Construction Accidents

March 18, 2025

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// Practice Pointer: Keep Your Eye On the Ball

Everyone is familiar with the idiom, “Keep your eye on the ball.” What it means, quite simply, is to keep one’s attention focused on the matter at hand. Lawyers must remember this during intense situations.

Last week we experienced just such an intense situation. In a case involving severe personal injuries sustained by our client, we attended a hearing on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The corporate defendant was asking the court to enter a judgment that it was not vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent. In other words, Defendant was asking the court to throw out the case against it. Serious stuff.

Defendant’s motion was brought under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense-or the part of each claim or defense-on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (bold added for emphasis).

The burden is on the moving party (in our case, the Defendant) to demonstrate the absence of genuine material facts, that no material issues remain for trial, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a). “An issue is genuine if ‘a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party,’ and ‘[a] fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’” Birren v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD, 2022 WL 657626, at *2 (S.D. Fla. March 4, 2022), quoting, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11^th Cir. 2008) and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 22, 247-48 (1986).

April 22, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Republicans Push Sovereign Immunity for Private Companies

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

This blog is the second on recent efforts by Republican legislators with the consequence of making Florida’s roads and highways more dangerous. (The first blog: Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Republican Legislators Work to Make Florida’s Roadways Less Safe.)

Section 768.28(5)(a), Florida Statutes limits the recovery against the state and its agencies and subdivisions for tort lawsuits to $200,000 per individual claim and $300,000 total for all claims arising out of the same incident or occurrence.

No matter how catastrophic and life-altering the injuries may be or whether death results from the negligence of the sovereign, this is the hard cap.
It does not matter what a judge or jury decides regarding the extent of the damages.

Section 768.28(5)(a) is the outgrowth of section 768.28(1), which is a limited waiver by the state of the doctrine commonly referred to as “Sovereign Immunity.” The doctrine is derived from English common law under which the King could not be sued on the theories that he could do no wrong, and that there could be no legal rights against the authority that makes the laws upon which the rights depend. See Miles McCann, Visiting Fellow, National Association of Attorneys General, State Sovereign Immunity, Nov. 11, 2017, https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/state-sovereign-immunity/(last visited Jan. 23, 2024).

In Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 728 (1999), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the doctrine was adopted by our country’s Founders in the Constitution itself rather than the Eleventh Amendment, solidifying its place in American jurisprudence. The doctrine is available to the federal government and every state.

Not every state chooses to hide behind sovereign immunity. California and New York, states with large populations and high costs of living and medical care like Florida, have no caps on suits against their state and local governments. Among the states using cap limits, Florida’s numbers are some of the lowest, making them a mere slap on the wrist to wrongdoers and failing to encourage safer practices and procedures.

December 7, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Ignorance of a Document’s Content is no Defense

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

“Ignorance of the law is no defense” is a popular expression. It means that a person will not be excused from punishment for not knowing that particular conduct was against the law.

A similar rule holds true when it comes to written documents: Ignorance of a document’s content does not discharge the responsibility of a party to the document.

We are in suit against a homeowner for serious personal injuries sustained by our client from an accident that occurred on the homeowner’s property during a construction project. Among the legal theories claimed for holding the homeowner responsible is the breach of his duty created by undertaking the project as the owner-builder.

April 26, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Vicarious Liability of Owners-Builders for Personal Injuries

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, most construction projects require the services of licensed contractors. See Section 489.101, Florida Statutes. Section 489.103 outlines various exemptions to this public policy. One of the exemptions, contained in 489.101(7)(a), applies to “Owners of property when acting as their own contractor and providing direct, onsite supervision themselves of all work not performed by licensed contractors.”

To impress upon owners the significance and consequences of operating as their own contractors without being licensed, the statute contains a 12-part section titled “Disclosure Statement.” The owner is required to sign this form for the local permitting agency.

In general, Florida law provides that “[A] property owner who employs an independent contractor to perform work on his property will not be held liable for injuries sustained by the employee of an independent contractor during the performance of that work.” Strickland v. TIMCO Aviation Servs., Inc., 66 So. 3d 1002, 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).