COURT AFFIRMED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE INJURED WORKER AND AGAINST THE BORROWED SERVANT DOCTRINE

Bryan Sagastume Mirlalda Concrete Holdings and Services v. Mitchell, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2320 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 24, 2025):

In a case involving the borrowed servant doctrine, the court emphasized that the party claiming a “special employee” defense carries a substantial burden to overcome the presumption of continuing general employment.

To successfully establish a “borrowed servant” relationship to defeat the presumption, the alleged special employer must prove three specific criteria: (1) Existence of a contract (either express or implied); (2) Nature of the being done at the time of the injury was essentially the work of the alleged special employer; and (3) That the special employer had the power to control the details of work being done at the time of the accident.

Because the required contract is often an implied one, courts consider factors that show a consensual relationship such as who received the a benefit of the work, who held the right of control, and who paid the compensation.

Because no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party defendant here on this issue, there was no genuine issue of fact to overcome the presumption of continuing employment.