Tampa Maid Seafood Prods. v. Porter, 415 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Tampa Maid Seafood Prods. v. Porter, 415 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (flsd, 2017-01-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
S.D. Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
Edwards Hospital v. Rakestraw, 114 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), where jealousy over a lovers’ triangle causes one worker to attack another with a workplace tool, Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where an employee is robbed at the workplace by an armed gunman, Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1983), and where a worker is robbed at home by persons seeking workplace cash register receipts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Santizo-Perez v. Genaro's Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Linen, 476 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (implement of the employment); Tampa Maid Seafood Prods, v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (close proximity); San Marco Co. v. Langford, 391 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (fortuitous location).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Powers v. ER Precision Optical Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Edwards Hospital v. Rakestraw, 114 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), where jealousy over a lovers' triangle causes one worker to attack another with a workplace tool, Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where an employee is robbed at the workplace by an armed gunman, Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla.1983), and where a worker is robbed at home by persons seeking workplace cash register receipts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc. (2×)
Fla. · 1989 · confidence medium
Edwards Hospital v. Rakestraw, 114 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), where jealousy over a lovers' triangle causes one worker to attack another with a workplace tool, Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where an employee is robbed at the workplace by an armed gunman, Prahl Brothers, Inc. v. Phillips, 429 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1983), and where a worker is robbed at home by persons seeking workplace cash register receipts. [5] Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria, 383 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1980).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Spleen v. Rogers Group, Inc. (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
The motion asserted that the order did not contain adequate findings of fact regarding how the claimant was injured, and that the deputy commissioner may have overlooked Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in which under similar circumstances the court found that the work place had facilitated the assault.
cited Cited "see" Carnegie v. Pan American Linen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
cited Cited "see" Brown v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tampa Maid Seafood Co. v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." WATSON v. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
N.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Stinson v. Prevatt, 94 So. 656 , 657 (1922) (framing the scope of employment standard as excluding homicide24); see also Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 268 F. Supp. 23 Plaintiffs also cite Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So. 2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), which involved an attack committed by an employee using a knife from the workplace.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TAMPA MAID SEAFOOD PRODUCTS and Wausau Insurance Companies, Appellants,
v.
Carol V. PORTER, Appellee.
AH-130.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jun 28, 1982.
415 So. 2d 883
Wigginton.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

[*884] Ivan Matusek, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Susan R. Whaley, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, and William D. Douglas, of Hamilton & Douglas, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

The employer/carrier appeal the order of the deputy commissioner finding that claimant, on March 26, 1981, suffered a compensable accident, arising out of and in the course of her employment, when she was injured during working hours on the employer's premises by a fellow employee. We affirm.

Claimant is a twenty-two year old woman who at the time of her injury was employed by Tampa Maid Seafood Products to peel shrimp. Both claimant and a co-employee, Erma Campbell, were romantically involved with a third co-employee, Donald Fields. Claimant and Campbell had no other personal relationship outside their work together, and all three initially met through their employment at Tampa Maid Seafood Products.

During lunch hour, on March 25, 1981, claimant informed Campbell of her relationship with Fields. Although Campbell admitted at the time of this conversation that she was not upset, she left work early to avoid any further confrontations with claimant. On the following morning, the date of the accident, Campbell noticed a number of co-employees going from table to table "gossiping." When she discovered that the rumors involved claimant and herself, she confronted claimant, brandishing a knife supplied by the employer for peeling shrimp. An altercation ensued, with Campbell ordering claimant to keep her name out of the gossip. Claimant reached out to Campbell who threw up her hand, allegedly to avoid being hit. The women launched into a fist fight during which Campbell stabbed claimant in her side and sliced her hand across the knuckles. Claimant later testified that she had never been involved in a dispute with Campbell before and had been under the impression that, despite the love triangle, Campbell did not harbour any feelings of animosity toward her.

First, we agree that claimant was not the aggressor. This, however, is not the deciding factor for there remains the question of whether the stabbing arose out of the employment. The determinative legal principles are set forth in San Marco Company, Inc. v. Langford, 391 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), quoting from Professor Larson[1] in his treatment of the subject:

When the animosity or dispute that culminates in an assault is imported into the employment from claimant's domestic or private life, and is not exacerbated by the employment, the assault does not arise out of the employment under any test.
* * * * * *
When it is clear that the origin of the assault was purely private and personal, and that the employment contributed nothing to the episode, whether by engendering or exacerbating the quarrel or[*885] facilitating the assault, the assault should be held noncompensable even in states fully accepting the positional-risk test, since that test applies only when the risk is "neutral."

391 So.2d at 326-327.

Although in San Marco the above rule as applied to the facts worked to deny the claimant compensation,[2] in the instant case, the deputy correctly determined that there were several circumstances which removed it from the above rule:

The dispute culminating in the assault was exacerbated by the employment because of the close proximity between the claimant and her assailant; the relationship between them and Mr. Fields originated at work; and the knife used in the assault was used at work, thus "facilitating the assault." It was not merely fortuitous that the assault occurred on the premises of the employer. Finally, there is no question that the claimant was not the aggressor.

Thus, by facilitating an assault which would not otherwise have been made, the employment became a contributing factor. Campbell became incensed over the gossip which, in all respects, is a beast native to the work place. In short, the "tormentor was an established fixture of the employment environment."[3]

We agree with the deputy that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Therefore, the deputy's award of temporary total disability compensation, medical expenses, attorney's fees and costs is AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

1 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 11.21 (1978).
2 In San Marco, the fact that the assault occurred at the work site was strictly fortuitous. Chances were that the assailant would not have ceased searching for the claimant beyond the work place, i.e., the assault was inevitable, without regard to the employment. See 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, §§ 11.00 and 11.21.
3 Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Cardillo, D.C. Cir., 112 F.2d 11 (1940), cert. denied 310 U.S. 649, 60 S.Ct. 1100, 84 L.Ed. 1415 (1940). As Justice Rutgers so astutely observed in the leading case of Cardillo: "[W]ork places men under strain and fatigue from human and mechanical impacts creating frictions which explode in myriads of ways, only some of which are immediately relevant to their tasks. Personal animosities [created] ... outside the job are magnified to the breaking point by its compelled contacts."