# Eller v. Shova

> Supreme Court of Florida · December 9, 1993 · 630 So. 2d 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9944913

## Case

- **Full name:** Karl Eller v. Randy Shova, Etc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** December 9, 1993
- **Citations:** 630 So. 2d 537; 1993 WL 502594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kogan
- **Judges:** Kogan, Overton
- **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9944913

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "employers are provided with immunity from suit by their employees so long as the employer has not engaged in any intentional act designed to result in or that is substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee"
- holding that system of compensation that provided no-fault recovery was a reasonable alternative to the right to sue one's employer for a work related injury

## Opinion text

There is no need for the majority to determine whether the statutory amendment in question abolished a cause of action, because the majority has found that the amendment provides a reasonable alternative to any cause that may have existed. That being the case, we need not reach the abolition issue. In this vein, the relevant statements in Kluger and Iglesia are cursory, questionable, and overbroad; and I would not analyze these cases in such a manner if I were writing on a clean slate. Common sense dictates that the act of imposing ever greater burdens of proof on plaintiffs at some point must effectively constitute the abolition of a cause of action.
For example, I think few would question that access to the courts is being denied if the legislature purports to preserve a cause of action but then insulates defendants with conclusive, irrebuttable presumptions. Such a "cause of action" would be little more than a legal sham used to circumvent article I, section 21. We have never yet said at what point an increased burden constitutes an impermissible abolition, nor do I believe the majority intends to imply that no such point exists. For that reason, I would leave the issue unaddressed in this case. *Page 544

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9944913. Public record. Not legal advice.