Case Name: Timmy SKOW and Linda Skow, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-05-01
Citations: 468 So. 2d 422
Docket Number: No. AW-260
Parties: Timmy SKOW and Linda Skow, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
Judges: MILLS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 468
Pages: 422–426

Head Matter:
Timmy SKOW and Linda Skow, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
No. AW-260.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 1, 1985.
Marilyn Sher, of Law Offices of Neil Chonin, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellants.
Donna S. Catoe, of Peters, Pickle, Flynn, Niemoeller & Downs, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
ZEHMER, Judge.
Timmy Skow, an employee of Capelletti Brothers, Inc., was injured while working on a bridge being constructed under a contract between Capelletti Brothers (Capellet-ti), the contractor, and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Skow was working high above the river without a safety belt when he lost his footing, slipped, and grabbed a pile driver, which crushed his hand. He and his wife, Linda Skow, appeal a final summary judgment for DOT on their claim for personal injury damages. We affirm.
Appellants argue that DOT owed Timmy Skow a legal duty to eliminate unsafe working conditions that it knew or should have known would expose workers to a substantial risk of harm. Notwithstanding the general rule that one who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by that contractor's employees in their work, Van Ness v. Independent Construction Co., 392 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), appellants argue that a legal duty arose because DOT assumed such detailed control over the work that the independent-contractor relationship between DOT and Capelletti ceased to exist. Additionally, appellants assert that Timmy Skow's work was inherently dangerous, that he was allowed to work without a safety belt, and that DOT breached its duty to enforce the requirements of the Capelletti/DOT contract and federal safety regulations by failing to require Capelletti to provide bridge workers with safety belts.
The undisputed facts in the record support the conclusion that although DOT actively participated in the inspection of work done by Capelletti, this was done only to ascertain the results of the work and not to control the method of performance or to insure Capelletti's compliance with safety regulations. DOT provided supervision only in the sense that its inspectors generally observed the work for compliance with the contract. The several instances of specific instruction given by DOT employees to Capelletti's employees constituted general supervision in this sense and did not amount to an exercise of control by DOT that is legally sufficient to take this case out of the general rule of Van Ness, supra.
Although the contract provided that Capelletti would comply with all applicable state and federal laws governing safety and provide safeguards and safety equipment for its employees, and provided that DOT had authority to shut down the job site for Capelletti's breach of this requirement, the contract did not impose an explicit duty on DOT to monitor, inspect, and correct violations by Capelletti. There is no indication in this record that DOT, as owner, created or contributed to the dangerous condition alleged to have caused Timmy Skow's injuries.
Since appellants' cause of action is not predicated on a showing that "the contracting owner by positive act of negligence or negligent omission on his part caused injury" to the independent contractor's employee, Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So.2d 293, 297 (Fla.1964), no duty, dele-gable or nondelegable, was owed by DOT to Timmy Skow. Ibid.; Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56 (Fla.1973); Van Ness v. Independent Construction Co., supra.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
MILLS, J., concurs.
ERVIN, C.J., dissents with written opinion.