City of Boca Raton v. Mattef
91 So. 2d 644 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner's duty to a licensee is to refrain from wanton negligence or willful misconduct that might cause injury and to warn of any known, latent dangers; a person who enters property to perform work for their own benefit, with the owner's passive permission but before a required contract is executed, has the status of a licensee.
Facts:
- Jesse Mattef, a sign painter, submitted a proposal to the City of Boca Raton to paint the town's name on its water tower for $80.
- The Town Council passed a motion awarding the job to Mattef, with the express condition that the Town Attorney first draw up a contract to protect the town's interests.
- The Town Attorney informed Mattef that the contract could not be written until Mattef obtained necessary job specifications from the Town Engineer.
- Without obtaining the specifications or waiting for the contract, Mattef decided on his own to begin the work.
- Mattef went to the water tower and informed the Water Plant Superintendent of his intention to start painting.
- The Superintendent did not object and assisted Mattef by passing some of his equipment up to him.
- While Mattef was painting, a rung on a steel ladder to which he had attached his tackle broke, causing him to fall to his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Minda S. Mattef, the deceased's widow, sued the City of Boca Raton in the trial court for wrongful death.
- The trial judge found as a matter of law that Jesse Mattef was an employee of the City.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mattef for $25,000.
- The trial court denied the City's motion for a new trial and entered a final judgment on the verdict.
- The City of Boca Raton, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 person who voluntarily begins work on city property, after the city council has conditionally approved their proposal but before a formal contract is executed as required by that approval, have the legal status of an employee to whom the city owes a duty to provide a safe workplace?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thornal
No. A person in this situation does not have the legal status of an employee but is, at most, a licensee. The essential element of an employer-employee relationship is the employer's right to control and direct the conduct of the employee, which was absent here. The City's acceptance of Mattef's offer was conditional upon the execution of a formal contract, a condition precedent that Mattef disregarded by beginning the work on his own volition. Because the contract was never executed, he was not an independent contractor. He was not a trespasser because the City's agent, the Water Plant Superintendent, knew he was there and offered minor assistance, implying permission. Therefore, by a process of elimination, Mattef was a licensee—one who is on the premises for his own purposes with the owner's permission but without an invitation. The City's duty to a licensee is limited to refraining from wanton negligence and warning of known, latent dangers.
Dissenting - Justice Terrell
This Justice dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear demarcation between the legal categories of employee, independent contractor, licensee, and trespasser, illustrating how the duty of care owed by a landowner varies significantly with each status. The court's holding underscores the critical importance of fulfilling conditions precedent in contract formation; Mattef's failure to wait for the required contract prevented the establishment of a relationship (employee or independent contractor) that would have imposed a higher duty of care on the City. The decision serves as a precedent that a person acting prematurely for their own business purposes, even with an owner's passive acquiescence, assumes the risk of the premises and is afforded only the minimal protection given to a licensee.
