Case Name: Daniel SCOTT and Patricia Scott, Appellants, v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, M.K. Developers, Inc., G.C. Developers of Naples, Inc., and Michael J. Loftus, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-07-06
Citations: 788 So. 2d 408
Docket Number: No. 2D00-1296
Parties: Daniel SCOTT and Patricia Scott, Appellants, v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, M.K. Developers, Inc., G.C. Developers of Naples, Inc., and Michael J. Loftus, Appellees.
Judges: PATTERSON, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 788
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
Daniel SCOTT and Patricia Scott, Appellants, v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, M.K. Developers, Inc., G.C. Developers of Naples, Inc., and Michael J. Loftus, Appellees.
No. 2D00-1296.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 6, 2001.
Paul B. Feltman, Miami, and Mark D. Greenberg, of counsel, Hudson, NY, for Appellants.
Bonita Kneeland Brown, Tampa, for Ap-pellees M.K. Developers, Inc., G.C. Developers, Inc., and Michael J. Loftus.
No appearance for Appellee Schindler Elevator Corporation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Scott and his wife, Patricia Scott, appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of G.C. Developers of Naples, Inc. ("G.C.Developers"), the company which owned property on which Mr. Scott was injured. Mr. Scott's injuries occurred when he fell down an elevator shaft while installing water sprinklers in G.C. Developers' building which was then under construction. The Seotts' claim against G.C. Developers for owner liability was premised upon the active role it took in the construction of its building. Affidavits and depositions supporting and opposing G.C. Developers' motion for summary judgment raised issues of material fact concerning the property owner's control over the construction of the building. Because there were issues of material fact to be determined by the trier of fact, the trial court erred in granting -summary judgment in favor of G.C. Developers. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
PATTERSON, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.