negligence

August 1, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Volunteer Immunity in Florida for Simple Negligence

Some states exempt charities from liability for damages caused by their servants. Florida does not. Nicholson v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 199 So. 344 (Fla. 1940). This is consistent with the legal doctrine known as respondeat superior, which holds employers liable for the negligent or purposeful acts of their employees. See Valeo v. East Coast Furniture Co., 95 So. 3d 921, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (negligence of employee imputed to employer when employee “committed the negligent act: (1) within the scope of employment, or (2) during the course of employment and to further a purpose or interest of the employer.”). This liability, also known as vicarious liability, applies even if the employer has done nothing wrong.

Most jurisdictions, either by state or federal law, exempt volunteers from all liability for injuries caused by negligence. This is an exception to the general rule that employees are liable for their negligence.

Congress enacted the “Volunteer Protection Act of 1997”

“to promote the interests of social service program beneficiaries and taxpayers and to sustain the availability of programs, nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities that depend on volunteer contributions by reforming the laws to provide certain protections from liability abuses related to volunteers serving nonprofit organizations and governmental entities.”

42 USC 14501 Sec. 2(b)

The Act preempts state law unless the state law provides greater protections to volunteers. Interestingly, it also authorizes states to enact laws under certain prescribed circumstances allowing civil suits against volunteers. Section 3(b).

February 12, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Avoiding Workers’ Compensation Immunity by Estoppel — Not So Fast!

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida’s civil liability and workers’ compensation systems handle legal matters for people injured or who have died in accidents. The systems have some similarities and differences. The biggest differences are that the plaintiff must prove fault to recover under civil law, and recoveries for non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering) are not available in workers’ compensation cases. It is not always obvious which remedy route is the best to follow. Most of the time, the aggrieved party does not have a choice.

Employers and fellow-employees are immune from civil lawsuits for work-related accidents. See sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes. In other words, the workers’ compensation system is the harmed individual’s exclusive remedy.

Exceptions arise when the employer has failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation (440.10(1) and 440.11(1)(a)), the employer commits an intentional tort (440.11(1)(b), or the fellow-employee acts with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence (440.11(1)).

Another exception may apply when 1) the employer makes a representation of a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; 2) the harmed worker relies on that representation; and 3) the worker is damaged by changing his or her position in reliance on said representation. See Specialty Emp. Leasing v. Davis, 737 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (quoting Dep’t of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397, 400 (Fla. 1981)). This exception is known as equitable estoppel.

In McNair v. Dorsey, 291 So.3d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), McNair was injured while carrying a tree branch to a wood chipper. The employer first asserted that there was “no compensable accident.” In a later pretrial stipulation, the employer claimed that no compensable accident occurred, and took the position that McNair’s accident did not occur within the course and scope of his employment.

October 6, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Duty and Proximate Cause are Essential Elements of Every Florida Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Negligence Case

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Duty and proximate cause are essential elements of every Florida personal injury and wrongful death negligence case.

DUTY: “Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.” See Kaisner v Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 735 (Fla. 1989) (citing Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1983)).

PROXIMATE CAUSE: “The proximate causation element, on the other hand, is concerned with whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” McCain v. Florida Power Corporation, 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992).

While the concept of foreseeability can be relevant to both elements, the concept “relates to duty and proximate causation in different ways and to different ends.” Id. at 502. Hence, merging the two elements into a single hybrid foreseeability analysis would be incorrect.