Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 83-2729
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | 83-3012,No. 83-2729,83-2729 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 851 Mary AINSWORTH, Appellant, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stinson, Lyons & Schuette and Douglas Lyons, Miami, for appellant.
Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for injury sustained when she was a paying guest in the Keio Hotel located in Tokyo, Japan, which was allegedly operated by the defendant.
The evidence indicated that the plaintiff slipped and fell on a threshold between the bathroom and guestroom. In construction of this hotel a prefabricated bathroom unit was utilized by the defendant. It was placed on the existing floor causing the floor of the bathroom to be elevated slightly above the remaining floor in the guestroom. This rise in elevation was covered by a threshold constructed of stainless steel. The threshold was elevated about one and one-half inches above the carpet in the guestroom. It had a smooth surface and sloped at a thirty degree angle for a distance of about three and one-third inches. The testimony of the experts offered by both sides was that, as constructed, this threshold constituted an inherently dangerous condition. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff which, among other things, found her to be 20% negligent.
Following the entry of the jury verdict and final judgment thereon, the trial court granted the defendant's reserved motion for directed verdict relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla.1983). The plaintiff appealed this ruling and the defendant filed a cross-appeal contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant it a directed verdict because the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant, as a franchisor, was responsible. We reverse, on the plaintiff's appeal, the order on the reserved motion for directed verdict.
We do not find Schoen v. Gilbert, supra, applicable in this commercial setting. While there was change in elevation in the instant case, that was not the claimed negligence. The defendant's negligence was the installation and maintenance of a threshold which was, in and of itself, inherently dangerous. This fact would be true no matter where this particular threshold was installed.
The order on the reserved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Agency Inc., 93-978
...make steps or stairs reasonably safe, see generally Atlantic Terrace Co. v. Rosen, 56 So.2d 444 (Fla.1952); Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 475 So.2d 694 (1985), we need not decide here, because an ordinance addressed the subject at......
-
Stewart v. Fletcher-Bright Co. of Florida, Inc.
...1986); Northwest Florida Crippled Children's Association v. Harigel, 479 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), pet. for review dismissed, 475 So.2d 694 (Fla.1985); Kupperman v. Levine, 462 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). S......
-
Hadley v. Davjoy, Inc.
...results in a different standard of care, Holland v. Baguette, Inc., 540 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA1989), and Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. dismissed, 475 So.2d 694 (Fla.1985), and with an elevation change in the middle of the room--rather......
-
Pratt v. Bahamasair Holding, Ltd., 88-2484
...the fall was an actionably defective one. See Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So.2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), pet. for review dismissed, 475 So.2d 694 (Fla.1985); Krivanek v. Pasternack, 490 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 198......