Air Canada v. Smith, GG-461
| Decision Date | 28 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. GG-461,GG-461 |
| Citation | 357 So.2d 789 |
| Parties | AIR CANADA, Appellant, v. Sara B. SMITH and Ivan H. Smith, her husband, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raymond Ehrlich and Marion R. Shepard of Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Howard C. Coker of Cowles, Coker & Myers, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Air Canada appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the Smiths in a suit brought by them for bodily injuries received by Sara Smith when she fell at the Montreal Airport in Canada.
The Smiths left Jacksonville, Florida, for a trip to Quebec, Canada. In compliance with Air Canada routing, they traveled on Eastern Airlines from Jacksonville to Kennedy Airport in New York. There they transferred to an Air Canada flight bound for Montreal, where they were to board another Air Canada flight to Quebec. When the Air Canada flight got to Montreal, the Smiths deplaned and were instructed by Air Canada's flight attendants to present themselves, as required by Canadian law, to the immigration authorities. After clearing immigration, they proceeded to a baggage carrousel in the immigration and customs area of the airport to pick up their bags, intending to go through customs as required by Canadian law. On the floor of the customs area, they found a baggage cart upon which they placed one or more bags. While Mrs. Smith was standing near the cart waiting for Mr. Smith to bring the other bags from the carrousel, she turned and tripped over what she described as an extension or appendage on the baggage cart. The area where Mrs. Smith fell was clean and well lighted. There was no impediment to her vision. The area was under the exclusive control of the Ministry of Transport, a branch of the Canadian government, and the Ministry was charged with the maintenance of the area. The carts were owned by the Ministry of Transport and were made available by it to persons in the immigration and customs area. Repairs on the carts, when necessary, were made by the Ministry of Transport. Although some Air Canada personnel might be admitted to the area, they were admitted only if they were identified and if they had some special reason to be there.
The Smiths contended that the baggage cart with its extension or appendage which was eight inches above the floor constituted a dangerous condition and unexpected hazard which was permitted to exist without warning to them....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kantonides v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
...entered terminal and because defendant did not lease, own, maintain or control the location of the accident); Air Canada v. Smith, 357 So.2d 789 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) (no duty for fall in baggage claim area despite fact plaintiff was proceeding to connecting flight; defendant did not own, ......
-
Arias v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...at § 14, p. 243. Cf. Wingard v. McDonald, 348 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 132 (Fla.1978); Air Canada v. Smith, 357 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We are not prepared to state on this record that defendant Williams failed to maintain the requisite control over the ......
-
Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd., Inc., 93-328
...and clean the terminal. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Seaescape. See Air Canada v. Smith, 357 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see generally, Corrales v. Spieler, 588 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA Affirmed. ...