Blocker v. Chance Hauling & Paving Co

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blocker v. Chance Hauling & Paving Co

426 So. 2d 70, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18588

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1983

DocketNo. AM-468

StatusPublished

This text of 426 So. 2d 70 (Blocker v. Chance Hauling & Paving Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blocker v. Chance Hauling & Paving Co, 426 So. 2d 70, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18588 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

This case arises from the same tragic accident described in Blocker v. Wynn, 425 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1983). Following his unsuccessful attempt to have the jury assess relative fault between Blocker and Chance Hauling and Paving Company, Wynn’s employer, Blocker filed a contribution action. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants based on Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981). We affirm.

[71]*71As recognized by the trial court and all the parties, Section 440.11 applies and its constitutionality was upheld in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978).

Blocker argues, based on Sunspan Engineering and Construction Company v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Company, 310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975), that the statute is unconstitutional as applied. Smith, however, creates a distinction between indemnity and contribution actions. Sunspan has been described as an indemnity case, Houdaille Ind. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979); Walker & LaBerge v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla.1977). The case before us is one for contribution, not indemnity. We, therefore, agree with the trial court that Smith and not Sunspan is the controlling decision.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MILLS, Judge.

This case arises from the same tragic accident described in Blocker v. Wynn, 425 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1983). Following his unsuccessful attempt to have the jury assess relative fault between Blocker and Chance Hauling and Paving Company, Wynn’s employer, Blocker filed a contribution action. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants based on Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981). We affirm.

[71]*71As recognized by the trial court and all the parties, Section 440.11 applies and its constitutionality was upheld in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978).

Blocker argues, based on Sunspan Engineering and Construction Company v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Company, 310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975), that the statute is unconstitutional as applied. Smith, however, creates a distinction between indemnity and contribution actions. Sunspan has been described as an indemnity case, Houdaille Ind. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979); Walker & LaBerge v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla.1977). The case before us is one for contribution, not indemnity. We, therefore, agree with the trial court that Smith and not Sunspan is the controlling decision.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 So. 2d 70, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blocker-v-chance-hauling-paving-co-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack