Title: Opinion File 73-120 thru 73-123
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003361/00001
 Material Information
Title: Opinion File 73-120 thru 73-123
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Buddy Blain's Collections - Opinion File 73-120 thru 73-123
General Note: Box 14, Folder 3 ( Opinions 1972 - 1973 - 1972 - 1973 ), Item 46
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003361
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




I-~
KEY WORS:?



opy to Myron Gibbons for his information .

prj.l 18, 1973


Ir. lbert Carter A
P.0 Box 457 10-0001
iroo sville, Fla. 33512
RE: OPINION, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Insurance coverage and review of Insurance specifications

)ea Mr. Carter:
We have been requested to render an opinion as to whether or
,ot your lock tenders and bridge tenders, who occasionally have
to g; out in small boats, if injured, while on navigable water,
Noul be covered under
1. The Florida Workmens Compensation Act, or;
2. The Federal Longshoremens and Harboororkers Act, or;
3. Sue for damages as "maritime workers or seamen", under
the Jones Federal Act.
Let me point out before beginning, that this is a vexing
aue ion where employees are injured under circumstances which
nay ford them coverage under either the Florida Workmens Compen-
sat:on Act or one of the federal acts.
In Atlas Iron and Metal Company -vs- Hesser, 177 So. 2d,
99 (Florida Supreme Court, 1905), the employee spent a sub-
ta tial portion of his working day on land, but at the time of
the accident he was aboard a ship on navigable waters.
The Court stated that this was a "twilight zone" type of
asa and that they would accept the U.S. Supreme Court's statement
n southern Pacific -vs- Jensen,244 U.S. 205;which accepts this
"tw light zone doctrine and in cases of uncertain jurisdiction,
re umes coverage under which ever act, state or federal, an ap-
li< action is made.
It is, therefore, our opinion based on these cases that the
inj fied employee's claim could be madeeither under the Florida
or ens Compensation Act or the Federal Longshoremens and Harbor-
or ers Act in that either Court would accept jurisdiction. As





8 7 -121
S, Apri 9 973

2





a p tactical matter, many attorneys would file this under the Florida
Worimens Compensation Act, but there are a few that would file this
und r the Federal law.

In response to the question whether or not these employees,
whi e injured on navigable waters in a boat while spraying, could
sue under the Jones Act (43 U.S.C.A. Sec. 688,) which would give
their the right to sue for unseaworthyness of the vessel which would
tak it out of the Compensation category and allow them the Common
Law damages for pain and suffering, inability to lead a normal life,
in addition to their loss of income, we feel that the answer to this
is in the negative.

In Sikes -vs- Fort Myers Construction Company, 191 So. 2d,
265 (Supreme Court of Florida, 19bb). The employee in this case
had begun work as a common land based laborer, but had acquired
the status of a tug boat operator at the time of his injury and
was injured while operating the dredge on a canal opening into the
Cal osahatchee River. The Supreme Court stated that the fact the
employee was paid an hourly wage for stated number of hours, that
he leeps and eats on shore rather than on the ship, it is indicative
tha he is not a "member of a crew" with more of less permanent con-
nec ion with the vessel. Therefore, denied the employer relief
umndr the Jones Act and upheld the decision of the Judge of Industrial
la ms that the Florida Industrial Commission had jurisdiction of
th claim and that it came under the Florida Workmens Compensation
ActJ
See also Anderson -vs- Olympic Dredging Company, 57 Fed. Suppl,,
Page 827.
We have reviewed the present Insurance Coverage Specification
and generally find them to be in good order.
One suggestion, on the scheduled equipment section on personal
pro erty, Fire and Theft only instead of all-risk coverage might re-
luce the premium.

Also, a close review annually of the "actual cash value" of
bhe scheduled equipment might reduce the over all value, hence the
pre tumr

Very truly yours,


ARMIN H. SMITH, JR.


I----


WSSh






S7 r8-122








Apr 18, 1973


r. Abert Carter
?.0 Box 457 10-0001
wo yaville, Fla. 33512
RE: OPINION, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Insurance coverage and review of Insurance specifications
Dea Mr. Carter:
We have been requested to render an opinion as to whether or
not your lock tenders and bridge tenders, who occasionally have
o eout in small boats, if injured, while on navigable water,
,ou d be covered under:
1. The Florida Workmens Compensation Act, or;
2. The Federal Longshoremens and Harborworkers Act, or;
3, Sue for damages as "maritime workers or seamen", under
the Jones Federal Act,
Let me point out before beginning, that this is a vexing
que tion where employees are injured under circumstances which
oay afford them coverage under either the Florida Workmens Compen-
sat on Act or one of the federal acts.
In Atlas Iron and Metal Company -vS. Hesser, 177 So. 2d,
199 (Florida Supreme Courts, 195), the employee spent a sub-
sta tial portion of his working day on land, but at the time of
the accident he was aboard a ship on navigable waters.
The Court stated that this was a "twilight zone" type of
asi and that they would accept the U.S. Supreme Court*s statement
in southern Pacific -ve- Jensen,244 U.S. 205;which accepts this
"t light zone doctrine and in cases of uncertain jurisdiction,
pr umes coverage under which ever act, state or federal, an ap-
plI action is made.
It is, therefore, our opinion based on these cases that the
injtried employee's claim could be madeeither under the Florida
Wor anens Compensation Act or the Federal Longshoremens and Harbor-
or :ers Act in that either Court would accept jurisdiction. As





7 8-123
April r 1973

2




a tactical matter, many attorneys would file this under the Florida
Wor mens Coorncnation Act, but there are a few that would file this
und r the Federal Law.
In response to the question whether or not these employees,
wh e injured on navigable waters in a boat while spraying, could
sue under the Jones Act (43 U.S.C.A. Sec. 688,) which would give
th the right to sue for unseaworthyness of the vessel which would
tao it out of the Compensation category and allow them the Common
aw damages for pain and suffering, inability to lead a normal life,
in addition to their loss of income, we feel that the answer to this
is n the negative.
In Sikes -vs- Fort Myers Construction Comany, 191 So. 2d,
265 (Supree Court of Florida, 19b6). The employee in this case
had begun work as a common land based laborer, but had acquired
the status of a tug boat operator at the time of his injury and
was injured while operating the dredge on a canal opening into the
Ca osahatchee River. The Supreme Court stated that the fact the
eml oyee was paid an- hourly wage for stated number of hours, that
he leeps and eats on shore rather than on the ship, it is indicative
tha he is not a "member of a crew" with more of less permanent con-
nec ion with the vessel, Therefore, denied the employer relief
und the Jones Act and upheld the decision of the Judge of Industrial
Ca that the Florida Industrial Commission had jurisdiction of
th claim and that it came under the Florida Workmens Compensation
Act
See also Anderson -vs-o Olympic Dredging Company, 57 Fed. Suppli,
fag 827.
We have reviewed the present Insurance Coverage Specification
and generally find them to be in good order,
One suggestion, on the scheduled equipment section on personal
pro erty, Fire and Theft only instead of all-risk coverage might re-
due the premium.
Also, a close review annually of the "actual cash value" of
the scheduled equipment might reduce the over all value, hence the
pre lur.

Very truly yours,


ARMIN H. SMITH, JR.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs