Opinion ID: 1784363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Case Law Interpreting the Unrelated Works Exception

Text: The scope of the unrelated works exception has been addressed by all of the district courts of appeal. See, e.g., Kelly, 810 So.2d at 561-62; Taylor v. Sch. Bd. of Broward County, 790 So.2d 1156, 1157-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), approved, 888 So.2d 1, 6 (Fla.2004); Lopez v. Vilches, 734 So.2d 1095, 1096-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), disapproved of by Taylor v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard County, 888 So.2d 1, 6 (Fla.2004); Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Laing, 731 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Vause v. Bay Med. Ctr., 687 So.2d 258, 261-63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Prior to this Court's decision in Taylor, the district courts had been split as to the appropriate test for determining whether coemployees were assigned primarily to unrelated works. The First, Third, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal applied a broad same project test in determining whether coemployees were assigned primarily to unrelated works. See, e.g., Vause, 687 So.2d at 263 (Each individual defendant was assigned to duties related to the purpose and function of decedent's job: The provision of health care to patients of the medical center.); Laing, 731 So.2d at 20 (concluding that the unrelated works exception did not apply because the coemployees were both working on the same project, in the sense that they were co-employees providing education related services to students); Taylor, 790 So.2d at 1157 (agreeing with the trial court's finding that the coemployees were not assigned primarily to unrelated works because they had in common the provision of transportation services to Brevard County school children) (internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast to the same project test, the Second District Court of Appeal in Lopez applied a narrower bright-line test that focused on the physical location of the coemployees and the scope of their duties. See 734 So.2d at 1097. The Fourth District has noted the two differing approaches of the other district courts, which it described as (1) a `case-by-case approach,' which examines whether co-employees were engaged in the same project and were `part of a team,' and (2) a `bright-line' test based on the physical location where the employees were primarily assigned and the unity of their business purpose. Kelly, 810 So.2d at 562 (citation omitted). However, the Fourth District has declined to adopt either approach, concluding in the cases before it that the results were the same under either test. See id.; Sch. Bd. of Broward County v. Victorin, 767 So.2d 551, 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In Taylor, this Court attempted to resolve a conflict between the Second District's decision in Lopez and the Fifth District's decision in Taylor. We considered whether a school bus driver and a school bus mechanic were assigned primarily to unrelated works. See Taylor, 888 So.2d at 2. After noting the Legislature's express admonition that the worker's compensation law not be construed liberally in favor of the employee or the employer and the Legislature's mandate[ ] that the ordinary rules of statutory construction be invoked, the Court concluded that the unrelated works exception must be interpreted narrowly. Id. at 4-5. We then set forth the analysis to be used to determine whether the unrelated works exception applies in a given case. In doing so, we did not adopt either the case-by-case same project test or the bright-line test. Rather, we concluded that the exception to this scheme for unrelated works should be applied only when it can clearly be demonstrated that a fellow employee whose actions caused the injury was engaged in works unrelated to the duties of the injured employee. Id. at 5 (emphasis supplied). We explained: While we would like to be more precise in providing guidance to those initially charged with deciding disputes based upon this exception, we are limited by our lack of precise knowledge of the legislative intent behind the exception and the reality that we could not hope to contemplate the myriad of factual circumstances that may give rise to the issue. Id. (emphasis supplied). Applying these principles, we held that the school bus driver and the school bus mechanic were not engaged in unrelated works because they shared a common goal of providing safe transportation to the students. Id. at 6. In reaching the decision in Taylor, we disapproved the Second District's decision in Lopez. See id. In Lopez, a funeral home worker was injured when the vehicle he was operating malfunctioned. See 734 So.2d at 1096. The funeral home worker filed suit against three coemployees, alleging that his injury was sustained as a result of their negligent maintenance of the vehicle. See id. The Second District held that the undisputed facts did not preclude the unrelated works exception and, thus, reversed the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants. See id. at 1097. The Second District reasoned that [t]he physical location of [the coemployees'] work appears to be separate and their specific purpose, general funeral home duties versus vehicle maintenance, appear distinct. Id. This Court disagreed and instead adopted the reasoning of the dissent in Lopez, which focused on the fact that all of the employees had duties related to the vehicle: I disagree and would affirm the trial court's determination that the unrelated works exception to the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits is not applicable to this situation. Lopez, Vilches, Brito and Kelly work for the same employer. All of them have some duties related to the van in question. Lopez drives the van to facilitate the moving of flowers from the chapel to the cemetery. The other employees use the van in their duties of maintaining and repairing the vehicles owned or leased by the employer. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the co-employees are engaged in unrelated works. See Abraham v. Dzafic, 666 So.2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Taylor, 888 So.2d at 6 (emphasis supplied) (quoting Lopez, 734 So.2d at 1098) (Quince, Associate Judge, dissenting).