Case Name: Jairo RINCON and Julia Rincon, his wife, Appellants, v. ABC CUTTING CONTRACTORS, INC., and Boulevard Motel Corp., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-12-24
Citations: 706 So. 2d 322
Docket Number: No. 96-4251
Parties: Jairo RINCON and Julia Rincon, his wife, Appellants, v. ABC CUTTING CONTRACTORS, INC., and Boulevard Motel Corp., Appellees.
Judges: PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 706
Pages: 322–326

Head Matter:
Jairo RINCON and Julia Rincon, his wife, Appellants, v. ABC CUTTING CONTRACTORS, INC., and Boulevard Motel Corp., Appellees.
No. 96-4251.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 24, 1997.
Gregg A. Silverstein of Silverstein, Silver-stein & Silverstein, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Richard B. Adams, Jr., and Joel Lumer of Law Offices of Adams & Adams, Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of ABC Cutting Contractors, Inc. ("ABC"), a subcontractor working on the renovation of the Clarion Hotel in Hollywood, in a personal injury action brought by the employee of another subcontractor. We reverse and remand.
ABC was hired by the general contractor, Welbro Design & Construction, Inc., to cut openings in a twelve foot high concrete canopy at the front of the hotel, where skylights were to be placed. The contract between ABC and the general contractor provided that the general contractor would "barricade the work area as needed." ABC's work orders indicated it was not responsible for barricading the work area.
The final work order was dated October 31, 1995, and ABC wrote "Job Complete" thereon. However, there is nothing in the present record to establish — by affidavit or deposition — that the general contractor had paid ABC or accepted ABC's work as completed by December 2, 1995, which is when the subject accident occurred.
Jairo Rincon worked for Leo's Painting, which was another subcontractor on the Clarion Hotel project. On December 2,1995, Rincon was pressure cleaning the concrete canopy area when he stepped backwards into one of the openings that had been cut, and fell approximately twelve feet. Rincon brought this personal injury action. The trial court entered summary judgment in ABC's favor based on the conclusion that Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.2d 462 (Fla.1958), re lieved ABC of liability because its work had been accepted by the general contractor.
It is clear from the transcript of the hearing on the subject motion that the trial court was concerned with the lapse of thirty-two days between ABC's final work order and the accident. Jurors may well conclude this to be a practical acceptance Of ABC's-work. Moreover, for all we know, when this case is returned to the trial court, proof of payment, absence of complaints and acceptance prior to December 2, 1995, may be forthcoming to show acceptance of ABC's work. That, however, is not the present state of the record.
The dissent herein points out the critical issue; namely,1 whether there was a duty to plaintiff at-the time of the accident. While the dissent concludes there was none, we conclude that the absence of such duty is not established by the record.
We cannot agree with our colleague, at this time, because it is uneontradieted by the depositions that the holes were a dangerous condition; that no one made any effort to cover or otherwise isolate the holes in the canopy; and that when ABC left the job, no representative of the general contractor approved the ABC final work order which said "Job Complete." Nothing in the dissent suggests our colleague perceives an absence of duty by ABC towards others on October 31, 1995. In our opinion, having created the dangerous condition, -ABC could not contract away its.obligation to others who were not a party to the contract between ABC and the general contractor. Although acceptance, whether formal or practical, would have relieved ABC of liability, that is precisely what this record fails to establish. What, then, on this record terminated the duty existing on October 31,1995?
Slavin has historical interest in at least two respects. First, it evolved on rehearing from the Justice who was the sole dissenter in the original opinion. Second, a major thrust of the opinion is a lengthy quote from an early Missouri case; and counsel for ABC, following oral argument, has now provided us an insight into the recent pronouncement of the "Show Me? state in Becker v. Setien, 904 S.W.2d 338 (Mo.Ct.App.1995). Becker indicates that Missouri's "acceptance rule" is applicable to relieve a subcontractor of tort liability to- third persons where the subcontractor's work was accepted by the general contractor or by the owner. Unfortunately, ABC's appellate counsel did not make the record before the trial court; and that is one of the major differences in the two cases.
In summation, given the expense, time and energy occasioned by seeking summary judgment without ABC having done what even Becker required, the system has been needlessly engaged. This case also serves as a reminder to trial judges who should insist at the summary judgment proceedings: "show me the affidavit."
PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
KLEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
. The Florida Supreme Court recently reiterated the quote from Casey v. Wrought Iron Bridge Co., 114 Mo.App. 47, 89 S.W. 330, 334 (1905), in Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 609 So.2d 504 (Fla.1992).