Bechtel Corp. v. Batchelor
250 So. 3d 187 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a contractor to be liable under a premises liability theory, the plaintiff must prove the contractor had sufficient possession and control over the premises, which is defined as the authority to control access and exclude others from the property. An adverse inference jury instruction is an improper discovery sanction for failure to locate former employees from decades prior without a preceding court order compelling such action.
Facts:
- From 1974 to 1980, Richard Batchelor was employed by Florida Power and Light (FPL) as an electrical technician at its Turkey Point power plant.
- During this period, Bechtel Corporation was a major contractor for FPL, providing extensive maintenance and overhaul services at the plant under service agreements.
- Some insulation used throughout the plant contained asbestos, which created dust when disturbed or removed.
- While performing his duties for FPL, Batchelor worked in the vicinity of other workers who were removing asbestos-containing insulation, exposing him to dust.
- Batchelor received all work instructions from his employer, FPL, and never from Bechtel.
- During maintenance shutdowns, FPL employees like Batchelor, Bechtel employees, and employees of other contractors all worked simultaneously on the same power units.
- In 2015, Batchelor was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma, a cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure.
- Batchelor also had prior exposure to asbestos from non-work-related activities, including repairing brakes as a hobby and sanding drywall.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard and Regina Batchelor filed a complaint against Bechtel Corporation and twenty-five other defendants in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida (the trial court).
- The Batchelors' claim against Bechtel was based on a theory of premises liability.
- Prior to trial, the trial court granted the Batchelors' motion for discovery sanctions and ruled it would give the jury an adverse inference instruction against Bechtel.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against Bechtel and one other defendant, who settled during the trial.
- Bechtel's motions for directed verdicts were denied by the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Batchelors, finding Bechtel 60% at fault and awarding damages in excess of $21 million.
- The trial court denied Bechtel's post-trial motions and entered a final judgment on the verdict.
- Bechtel, as the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida; the Batchelors were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contractor exercise sufficient possession and control over a worksite to be liable under a premises liability theory for injuries to a property owner's employee when the contractor performs extensive work on the premises but lacks the authority to control access or exclude others from the work area?
Opinions:
Majority - Logue, J.
No. A contractor does not exercise sufficient possession and control for purposes of premises liability merely by performing extensive work on a property; liability rests on the right to control access and exclude others from the premises, which was not established here. The plaintiff must provide evidence beyond speculation that the contractor had this authority. Here, there was no direct evidence that FPL surrendered control to Bechtel, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. The fact that FPL's own employees, like Batchelor, worked alongside Bechtel in the same areas demonstrates that Bechtel lacked the authority to exclude others, which is the hallmark of control. The court also held that the adverse inference jury instruction was reversible error because such a severe sanction is improper without a prior court order compelling the discovery, especially an extraordinary one like locating employees from over thirty years ago.
Dissenting - Emas, J.
Yes. Sufficient evidence was presented for a jury to reasonably conclude that Bechtel exercised, at a minimum, joint control over the portions of the premises where Batchelor was exposed to asbestos. The issue of possession and control is a question of fact for the jury, and a directed verdict is only proper when there is a complete absence of supporting evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Batchelor, Bechtel's pervasive presence (over one million man-hours), its role as the primary contractor for major overhauls, and its contractual responsibilities created a valid inference of shared control. The majority improperly reweighed the evidence, which is the sole province of the jury, and ignored the legal principle that control need not be exclusive to establish a duty of care.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'possession and control' element for premises liability claims against contractors in Florida, setting a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs. It establishes that demonstrating a contractor's large-scale presence and operational responsibility is insufficient; the plaintiff must prove the contractor had the specific authority to control access and exclude others from the work area. This precedent protects contractors from being held liable as quasi-landowners for all hazards on a worksite, particularly those created by the property owner or other third parties, thereby narrowing the scope of contractor liability in multi-employer settings.
