Summary

On November 22, 1991, an explosion at the PCR chemical plant in Gainesville, Florida tragically killed Paul Turner, and seriously injured James Creighton. Jack Fine helped to bring a wrongful death action against PCR Inc. on behalf of Paul’s wife and personal estate representative, Debra Ann Turner. An additional personal injury claim was made by James and Lynn Creighton. 

The explosion was a direct result of PCR’s handling of Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), a highly reactive and explosive chemical. Despite knowing the severe risks involved, PCR modified its safety protocols to expedite production, thereby compromising employee safety. The investigation revealed that PCR had previously experienced at least three other uncontrolled explosions with similar chemicals, yet failed to take adequate safety measures or inform their employees of the dangers.

Jack faced some challenges in overcoming PCR’s defense, which claimed workers’ compensation immunity under Florida Statute § 440.09(1), which states that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for “accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment.” This defense, if accepted, would limit the firm’s clients to workers’ compensation benefits, precluding a full wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit. However, Jack argued that PCR’s actions constituted an intentional tort, as defined in § 440.11, which provides exceptions to employer immunity for intentional or reckless acts. 

The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of PCR, but we appealed, presenting substantial evidence including expert affidavits from chemists Dr. John Landrum and Mr. Jack Brand. They testified that PCR’s methods were fundamentally unsafe and that the explosion was a foreseeable outcome of PCR’s negligent practices.

The appellate court’s ruling in our favor was a landmark decision. It established that expert affidavits indicating an employer’s deliberate intent or substantial certainty of causing harm could indeed preclude summary judgment on workers’ compensation immunity. This ruling is consistent with Florida Statute § 440.015, which emphasizes the quick and efficient delivery of benefits while ensuring that the facts in a workers’ compensation case are not interpreted liberally in favor of either the employer or the employee. The decision also reaffirmed the intentional tort exception recognized in previous cases like Eller v. Shova and Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co.

Not only did this case bring some measure of justice to the Turner and Creighton families but it also set the standard of holding employers accountable for creating safe working environments. This case shows our commitment to fighting for the rights and safety of workers, ensuring that their well-being is protected under the law.