MIAMI-DADE V. ARAVENA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ** ** Appellant, vs. ** CASE NO. 3D03-2482 ** JULIO ARAVENA, the husband and as Personal Representative of the Estate of GREGORIA VEGA, deceased. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-14169 ** Appellee. Opinion filed November 10, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Leslie Rothenberg, Judge. Robert A. Ginsburg, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Jeffrey P. Ehrlich, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant. Feiler, Leach & McCarron and Martin E. Leach, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY, and WELLS, JJ. WELLS, Judge. Miami-Dade County appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, claiming that this wrongful death immunity. action is barred by workers compensation Because we agree that the unrelated works exception to workers compensation immunity does not apply to this case, we reverse. The decedent, Gregoria Vega, was employed by the County s police department as a part-time school crossing guard at the intersection of Southwest 16th Street and 62nd Avenue. On October 24, 2001, two vehicles one traveling northbound, the other eastbound collided in the intersection. vehicles veered off the road killing Vega. accident, the traffic lights at the One of the At the time of the intersection were not operating properly. Julio Aravena, Vega s husband, subsequently brought a wrongful death suit alleging that Vega s death was caused, in part, by the negligence of County traffic signal repair personnel who failed to timely repair the malfunctioning traffic light. Aravena s Workers employers The County action sought was Compensation and barred Law co-employees employer s business. to avoid by which liability that portion accords acting in tort claiming of Florida s immunity furtherance that of to the § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). The trial court disagreed with the County, finding that Aravena s claim fell within the unrelated works exception to the co-workers immunity provision. Id. (stating that co-worker immunity is not 2 applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in furtherance of the employer s business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works ). We disagree. In Taylor v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard County, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S421, S422 concluded (Fla. that compensation Aug. the 19, 2004), unrelated immunity was the works to be Florida Supreme exception interpreted to Court workers narrowly and 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. Applying this principle and test to the facts therein, the Supreme Court found that the duties of a school bus attendant who was injured when the wheelchair lift affixed to a school bus fell on him were related to the duties of the school bus mechanic who maintained the bus because the attendant and the mechanic had in common the provision of school children. Court approved transportation Id. the services to Brevard County In reaching this decision, the Supreme Fifth District Court of Appeal s determination that the co-employees were involved in the same project, finding that the holding comport[ed] with the overall legislative intent of the Florida Workers Compensation Law, because the law was meant to systematically resolve nearly every workplace injury case on behalf of both the employee and the employer. Id.; see also Sanchez v. Dade County Sch. Bd., 784 3 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review granted, 819 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2002)(finding no exception from co-worker immunity for school security personnel who failed to protect a school teacher from a trespasser assault in the teachers parking lot because the teacher and security personnel were collectively engaged in activities primarily related to the provision of education related services ); Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Laing, 731 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(finding no exception from co-worker immunity for a custodian who struck a teacher leaving a classroom with a golf cart because the teacher and custodian were both working on the same project, in the sense that they were co-employees students at providing Hialeah High education School ); related Johnson services v. Comet to Steel Erection, Inc., 435 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(finding no exception from co-worker immunity because the fact that appellant was a common laborer for the general contractor and the tortfeasor was a welder for the subcontractor did not make their work unrelated ); accord Fitzgerald v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 840 So. 2d 460, 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(finding no exception from co-worker immunity for maintenance personnel whose negligence allegedly resulted in a bathroom stall door falling on a nurse because both [the nurse and maintenance personnel] performed services relating to the hospital s mission, which was the treatment of patients ); compare Palm 4 Beach County v. Kelly, 810 So. 2d 560, 562 2002)(applying the unrelated works exception employee, who primarily maintained and (Fla. 4th DCA where a county repaired excavation equipment at a rock pit, had an automobile accident with another county employee, who swept and mowed airport grounds, because these co-employees had different job duties and did not work cooperatively as a team but, rather, worked on two entirely different projects ). In the instant case, it cannot be said that employees worked on entirely different projects. clearly demonstrated that the work of the these co- Nor can it be County s traffic signal repair personnel, whose job was to regulate vehicular and pedestrian traffic, was unrelated to the work of the school crossing guard, whose job also was to regulate vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the same intersection. To hold otherwise would contravene the overall legislative intent of the workers compensation nearly every law, which workplace was meant injury employee and the employer. case to on systematically behalf of resolve both the Taylor, 29 Fla. L. Weekly at S422. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remand for entry of judgment for the County based on workers compensation immunity. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.