Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 94-1318
| Decision Date | 10 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1318,94-1318 |
| Citation | 651 So.2d 811 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D632 Lucille ROSENFELD, et al., Appellants, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dougald B. Leitch of Law Offices of Mahaffey & Leitch, Orlando, for appellants.
John Ward Smith of Roth, Edwards & Smith, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
The Rosenfelds appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of Walt Disney World Company. The trial court held Lucille Rosenfeld could not recover damages caused by her fall over a street curb on "Main Street USA," at the Magic Kingdom in Orange County, Florida, from Walt Disney World, the owner and operator of the theme park. The major thrust of the Rosenfelds' complaint was that the Disney property where Lucille fell is a public amusement park, not a public street, and that the curb, street and sidewalk were colored artificially in such a way as to create an optical illusion of flatness, which obscured the change of levels from Lucille's view, and created a hazard for guests and patrons visiting Main Street.
This court has held en banc that changes in levels from ordinary curbs to streets do not subject a landowner to premises liability for injuries suffered by persons falling over the curbs and that an optical illusion of flatness created by the colors of the curb and street does not make them inherently or unreasonably dangerous, as a matter of law. Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 604 So.2d 486 (Fla.1992). Disney's Main Street curbs and streets are recreations of ordinary village and town streets and curbs, although located in its amusement park. That fact alone is not sufficient to remove Disney's ordinary streets and curbs from the category of open and obvious hazards. Thus, this case is controlled by Gorin. See also Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 142 (Fla.1990).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc.
...here created an optical illusion, nor was there proof of an uncommon design or mode of construction."); Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) (finding that a change in elevation between painted curb and street located in an amusement park that alleged......
-
Marriott International, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez
...DCA), review denied, 799 So.2d 219 (Fla.2001); Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA),review denied, 604 So.2d 486 (Fla.1992); and Circle......
-
Krol v. City of Orlando
...was open and obvious and summary judgment was appropriate as a matter of law pursuant to the decision in Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) and its ancestry. We There are two distinct issues that we must resolve in determining whether summary judgment is a......
-
Taylor v. UNIVERSAL CITY PROPERTY MGMT., 5D00-1546.
...conditions. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See also Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So.2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Important to the appellee's motion for summary j......