Case Name: Deborah STANDER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Stander, deceased, Appellant, v. DISPOZ-O-PRODUCTS, INC., a South Carolina corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 973 So. 2d 603
Docket Number: No. 4D07-269
Parties: Deborah STANDER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Stander, deceased, Appellant, v. DISPOZ-O-PRODUCTS, INC., a South Carolina corporation, Appellee.
Judges: HAZOURI, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 973
Pages: 603–611

Head Matter:
Deborah STANDER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Stander, deceased, Appellant, v. DISPOZ-O-PRODUCTS, INC., a South Carolina corporation, Appellee.
No. 4D07-269.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 23, 2008.
Joel S. Perwin of Joel S. Perwin, P.A., and Tod Aronovitz and Christopher Mar-low of Aronovitz Trial Lawyers, Miami, for appellant.
Steven J. Clarfield and John B. Marion, IV, of Sellars, Marion & Bachi, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
KLEIN, J.
Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing with prejudice her complaint alleging that the defendant, who sent goods through an independent contractor trucking company, is responsible for an accident in which the decedent was killed by the driver of the truck owned by the independent contractor. We affirm.
In the complaint it was alleged that defendant was liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because the defendant failed to investigate the background, qualifications, or experience of the driver, and knew or should have known the driver was unfit. It was also alleged that the defendant had a non-delegable duty to protect motorists on the highway from the danger that the driver posed. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint contained only conclusions, and no facts which could make someone liable for negligently selecting an independent contractor trucker to transport goods.
Plaintiff relies on Suarez v. Gonzalez, 820 So.2d 342, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), in which we first set out the general rule:
Generally, the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because the employer has no control over the manner in which the work is done. 2A Fla. Jur.2d Agency & Employment § 138 (1998); see St. Johns & Halifax R.R. Co. v. Shalley, 33 Fla. 397, 14 So. 890, 892 (1894); Singer v. Star, 510 So.2d 637, 639-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
We found an exception to the general rule in Suarez because an incompetent independent contractor had been hired by a landlord, which resulted in injury to a tenant. Suarez is distinguishable because the landlord in Suarez owed a duty to the tenant which does not exist here. Suarez is a perfect example of why it is necessary to allege facts in order to pursue a negligence lawsuit against a person engaging an independent contractor. In Suarez, the landlord was converting her garage into a rentable apartment and had cabinets installed by a man she saw passing by on the street with some cabinets in his van. She paid the man in cash, signed no contract, and did not know his name or whether he was licensed. The tenant was seriously injured when one of the cabinets fell off the wall and struck him in the head.
Plaintiff has not cited a case from Florida or any other jurisdiction which would support a cause of action under the conclusory allegations contained in this complaint. In the absence of factual allegations as to why someone who hires an independent contractor to transport goods should conduct an investigation into the background, qualifications, or experience of the driver, there is no duty to third parties.
As for Judge Emas's dissenting opinion that we should reverse so plaintiff can amend, a party who does not seek to amend in the trial court cannot raise the issue of amendment for the first time on appeal. Lutz v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 951 So.2d 884, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Merkle v. Health Options, Inc., 940 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Century 21 Admiral's Port, Inc. v. Walker, 471 So.2d 544, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Johnson v. RCA Corp., 395 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
As we noted earlier, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint because the complaint contained no facts, and the conclusions were insufficient to make the defendant liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. It was plaintiffs position in the trial court, however, that it was unnecessary to allege any facts. Plaintiff actually admitted that "discovery has not begun in earnest and we have no facts upon which to rely."
Plaintiff further advised the court:
The limited issue that's before this court in this plaintiffs position is respectfully requesting that this court allow us to plead the well-established cause of action of negligent hiring, period. If the facts don't bear it out, fine, but that's not for today's — that is the position that that is not for today to be addressed. Your honor would not be supplanting the legislative wisdom in either enacting or not enacting legislation that would specifically address this, but we are asking and we have pled a cause of action based on negligent hiring.
After pointing out that plaintiff had cited no cases which would support her position, and reiterating that the mere conclusions in the complaint did not state a cause of action, the court announced that it was dismissing with prejudice and commented to plaintiff "good luck with the Fourth District." Plaintiffs response was, "Thank you, your Honor." Plaintiff did not request leave to amend the complaint, nor did plaintiff move for rehearing to amend after the order of dismissal was entered.
Judge Emas states that, at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, defendant "never raised or argued the factual insufficiency of the complaint." In both the motion to dismiss and the memorandum in support of the motion, defendant stated:
Plaintiff has sued DOP under the heading of "Negligent Hiring," however, nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff allege any facts which would establish a basis to support such a claim.
And, at the hearing, the court stated in response to plaintiffs argument:
THE COURT: Well, the devil's in the details. What's the facts of this case?
We cannot, accordingly, agree with Judge Emas that the factual insufficiency of the complaint was not considered.
Affirmed.
HAZOURI, J., concurs.
EMAS, KEVIN J., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.