Bracic v. Hall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bracic v. Hall

564 So. 2d 290, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5443, 1990 WL 105519

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1990

DocketNo. 89-03227

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 564 So. 2d 290 (Bracic v. Hall) 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

Bracic v. Hall, 564 So. 2d 290, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5443, 1990 WL 105519 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

Ivan R. Bracic was injured while at work when a coworker tossed a small firecracker into the bathroom stall he was occupying. After receiving worker’s compensation benefits, Bracic sued the coworker, Hall, asserting negligence. Hall claimed fellow-employee immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985).

Section 440.11(1) in pertinent part provides:

The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter.

The record contains conflicting evidence as to whether the playful use of these firecrackers was sanctioned by the employer as a morale booster among the employees. It includes a memorandum to Hall from his supervisor condemning his conduct and stating, “neither I nor AMP, Incorporated will tolerate horseplay of any kind during working hours.” This memorandum, in and of itself, raises the question whether Hall “was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business” at the time of this incident. The granting of summary judgment in Hall’s favor was therefore error. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.

HALL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

Ivan R. Bracic was injured while at work when a coworker tossed a small firecracker into the bathroom stall he was occupying. After receiving worker’s compensation benefits, Bracic sued the coworker, Hall, asserting negligence. Hall claimed fellow-employee immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985).

Section 440.11(1) in pertinent part provides:

The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter.

The record contains conflicting evidence as to whether the playful use of these firecrackers was sanctioned by the employer as a morale booster among the employees. It includes a memorandum to Hall from his supervisor condemning his conduct and stating, “neither I nor AMP, Incorporated will tolerate horseplay of any kind during working hours.” This memorandum, in and of itself, raises the question whether Hall “was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business” at the time of this incident. The granting of summary judgment in Hall’s favor was therefore error. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.

HALL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 290, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5443, 1990 WL 105519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracic-v-hall-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack