Case Name: Mark CLERKIN, Appellant, v. KENDALL TOWN & COUNTRY ASSOCIATES, LTD., a limited partnership, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-08-02
Citations: 535 So. 2d 288
Docket Number: No. 87-1731
Parties: Mark CLERKIN, Appellant, v. KENDALL TOWN & COUNTRY ASSOCIATES, LTD., a limited partnership, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 535
Pages: 288–290

Head Matter:
Mark CLERKIN, Appellant, v. KENDALL TOWN & COUNTRY ASSOCIATES, LTD., a limited partnership, Appellee.
No. 87-1731.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 2, 1988.
On Rehearing Jan. 3, 1989.
Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Joel D. Eaton, Rossman, Baumberger & Peltz, for appellant.
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary Wilder, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings upon a holding that genuine issues of material fact are presented on this record as to: (1) whether the defendant/owner Kendall Town & Country Associates, Ltd. was acting as its own general contractor on the construction project wherein the plaintiff Mark Clerkin was injured as an employee of an independent contractor, see, e.g., Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Smith v. Ussery, 261 So.2d 164 (Fla.1972); Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So.2d 601 (Fla.1966); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Lewis v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc., 498 So.2d 573, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 503 So.2d 327 (Fla.1987); Cadillac Fairview of Fla., Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So.2d 417, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 479 So.2d 117 (Fla.1985); and (2) whether— even if the above-stated defendant/owner had hired a true general contractor for the subject construction project — the said defendant/owner actively supervised and directed the construction work on the said project, notwithstanding the existence of the said general contractor, see, e.g., Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56, 60 (Fla.1973); Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So.2d 601 (Fla.1966); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); E.J. Strickland Constr., Inc. v. Department of Agric. & Consumer Serv. of Fla., 515 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Life From The Sea, Inc. v. Levy, 502 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 509 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1987).
If the plaintiff prevails at trial on either of the above issues, he will have shown that the above-stated defendant/owner owed a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff who, without dispute, was invited onto the defendant/owner's property. Given the presence of genuine issues of material fact on these two issues, a summary judgment in favor of the defendant/owner was inappropriate. Moreover, the undisputed fact that the said defendant/owner did not personally direct the creation of and had no personal knowledge of the hole in the roof decking through which the plaintiff fell and was injured does not — contrary to the defendant/owner's contention — change this result. See generally Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56 (Fla.1973); City of Miami v. Perez, 509 So.2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 519 So.2d 987 (Fla.1987).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ., concur.