Ray's Plumbing Contractors, Inc. v. Trujillo Construction

Appellant Ray's Plumbing challenges a summary final judgment in favor of Trujillo Construction in which the trial court ruled that appellant's acceptance, as contractor, of construction work completed by the appellee, as subcontractor, absolved appellee from any liability for injuries allegedly sustained by a third party at a construction site. At issue here is the applicability of the ""completed and accepted"" rule of Baader v. Looby, 126 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), relied upon by the trial court in its ruling. For the reasons that follow, we find that unresolved factual issues preclude summary judgment under the rule at this stage of the proceedings, and therefore reverse. Arthur May, plaintiff below, filed a negligence action against both appellant and appellee, alleging that he sustained injuries when he stepped into a hole in the ground at the construction site where defendants had done work. May alleged that defendants were negligent in creating and leaving the hole on the property without filling or covering it, or providing an enclosure or barrier or otherwise marking or warning of the hole. Affidavits and other documents were filed, from which it appears that appellant contracted with appellee for the performance of ""jack-in-bores"" at the site, and that the hole in question was a small hole dug by appellee ""adjacent to the roadway and gate"" at the project ""for the apparent purpose of locating an underground line to prevent its rupture"" by appellee during its work. 1 Appellant's project manager's affidavit states that he was not informed of the hole's existence by Trujillo, and that to his knowledge no employee of Ray's was aware of the presence of the hole until after the accident. He further stated that the hole was not contemplated within the contract between the parties, and it was ""not a hole that required dewatering [sic], pit excavation, backfilling, compacting or layout as contemplated in the contract between the parties."" 2