McDonald, justice. In Abernathy v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 428 So.2d 272, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the second district asked the question: CAN THE EMPLOYEE OF A “CONTRACTOR”, HAYING RECEIVED WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM HIS EMPLOYER, SUE HIS EMPLOYER’S SUBCONTRACTOR FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LATTER’S EMPLOYEE? We have jurisdiction pursuant to

article V,

section 3(b)(4) of the state constitution. We answer this question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court on this issue. The opinion of the district court correctly recites our past holdings relative to immunity in this area of the law and we need not repeat them. Suffice it to say that the 1974 amendment to

section 440.10, Florida Statutes, which authorizes suit by an employee of a subcontractor against another subcontractor for injuries occurring on a common job, modifies the common employment premise of our earlier holdings such as Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690 (1940), and Carter v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 198 So.2d 25 (Fla.1967). The justification for limiting liability or granting immunity is the substitution of something else in its place, a quid pro quo. The duty to provide workers’ compensation benefits supplants tort liability to those injured on the job. Jones v.

Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954). If the duty to provide such coverage does not exist, then one has no reason to expect immunity from wrongdoings committed against a third party. The dissent of Chief Justice Sundberg in Motchkavitz v. L.C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So.2d 910 (Fla.1981), is now correct, and we recede from Younger and Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, 48 So.2d 840 (Fla.1950), thus allowing a third-party action against one who has no duty to afford compensation benefits.

Because we are adopting the opinion and analysis of the Second District Court of Appeal on this issue, a further recitation of our reasons for modifying prior existing law is both duplicitous and unnecessary. The decision of the district court allowing Abernathy to maintain an action against Metropolitan Drywall Systems, Inc., and Allied Crane Service, Inc., is approved. It is so ordered. ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., concurs specially with an opinion. ALDERMAN, C.J., dissents with an opinion.