CASES - Civil
Wrongful death -- Sheriffs -- Duty of care -- Action against sheriff in his official capacity alleging decedent died
as direct and proximate result of negligent actions of deputies who responded to 911 call to conduct a well-being
check at decedent's home several days before she died, found decedent on the couch breathing, but
unresponsive, failed to call for medical assistance, and suggested that neighbor, who was present with deputies,
leave decedent's door unlocked and return to check on her later -- No error in dismissing with prejudice
plaintiff's second amended complaint because defendant did not owe decedent statutory or common law duty of
care -- Under common law, no tort liability exists for discretionary law enforcement duties unless government
actor places injured party in a “zone of risk,” assumes control over a situation to the exclusion of
others, or makes representations to injured party, or injured party's agent, that specific law enforcement action
will be taken, thereby creating special relationship with injured party -- Responding to 911 call to conduct a
well-being check does not constitute “an express promise or assurance of assistance” -- Deputies'
obligation was simply not to increase risk of harm to decedent or cause her, or someone acting on her behalf, to
rely on their representations to decedent's detriment, and, assuming facts pled in second amended complaint are
true, deputies took no affirmative action which contributed to, increased, or changed the risk to the decedent,
which otherwise already existed -- Public policy supports this
conclusion
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2852a
Torts -- Spoliation of evidence -- Duty to preserve evidence -- Workers' compensation -- Employee of help supply services company who sustained severe injuries when he fell from ladder while working for construction company brought spoliation claim for lost ladder against help services company and construction company -- A special employer using a laborer from a help supply services company fits definition of “employer” as used in section 440.39(7) and has a duty under that statute to preserve evidence for the injured laborer's claim against a third-party tortfeasor -- Applying majority rule under doctrine of lent employment, that if general employer simply arranges for labor without heavy equipment, transferred workers become employees of special employer, plaintiff is a borrowed employee of construction company because help supply services company merely arranged for plaintiff's labor, without providing heavy equipment -- Applying Varney factors for determining existence of special relationship, borrowing company is plaintiff's special employer because record shows that company assumed control of plaintiff by ordering him to work on site with company's tools, plaintiff consented by undertaking the assignment and climbing the provided ladder, and work was for borrowing company's benefit because employee was working on renovation project awarded to borrowing company Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2822a
Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2852a
Torts -- Spoliation of evidence -- Duty to preserve evidence -- Workers' compensation -- Employee of help supply services company who sustained severe injuries when he fell from ladder while working for construction company brought spoliation claim for lost ladder against help services company and construction company -- A special employer using a laborer from a help supply services company fits definition of “employer” as used in section 440.39(7) and has a duty under that statute to preserve evidence for the injured laborer's claim against a third-party tortfeasor -- Applying majority rule under doctrine of lent employment, that if general employer simply arranges for labor without heavy equipment, transferred workers become employees of special employer, plaintiff is a borrowed employee of construction company because help supply services company merely arranged for plaintiff's labor, without providing heavy equipment -- Applying Varney factors for determining existence of special relationship, borrowing company is plaintiff's special employer because record shows that company assumed control of plaintiff by ordering him to work on site with company's tools, plaintiff consented by undertaking the assignment and climbing the provided ladder, and work was for borrowing company's benefit because employee was working on renovation project awarded to borrowing company Reported at 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2822a
Comments