is challenged based on “the improper admission or rejection of evidence,” the judgment will be reversed only if “after an examination of the entire case” the reviewing court concludes “that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2006). Accordingly, Saleeby is entitled to prevail on appeal only if a substantial right of Saleeby has been adversely affected and a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Saleeby’s case turned on whether Elson was immune from tort liability as an employer pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1999). Saleeby contended that Elson had lost its immunity because it engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury to Saleeby. See Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683, 691 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). To obtain relief against Elson, Saleeby had
holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct holding that the intentional tort exception to employer immunity includes an objective standard to measure whether the employer engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot