Andrews v. Narber
| Decision Date | 18 July 1952 |
| Citation | 59 So.2d 869 |
| Parties | ANDREWS v. NARBER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Butt and Akridge, Cocoa, for appellant.
J. Thomas Gurney, Orlando, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment on the pleadings in a personal injury action.
After the original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiff below, appellant here, alleged that the defendant below, appellee here, maintained and operated certain premises consisting of a hotel, swimming pool, bar or cocktail lounge, and other facilities for public patronage; that she had a standing invitation from the defendant to use the premises, swimming pool and all other facilities at any time; that as a guest and invitee of the defendant, she entered upon the premises for the purpose of using the swimming pool; that it was the duty of the defendant to maintain the premises, swimming pool and the walkway adjacent to the pool in a safe condition for guests and invitees; that the defendant failed to perform his duty but carelessly and negligently permitted water from an open spigot to flow through a garden hose and collect and puddle upon the cement walkway adjacent to and near the pool, same being provided for nonbathing guests and invitees as well as bathers, as a consequence of which the walkway became slick, slippery and unsafe; that as she approached the walkway from the East and facing in a Westerly direction the sun was bright and blinding and her vision was momentarily obscured and she was unable to observe the unexpected water standing upon said walkway; as a result of all of this, she slipped and fell and received an injury for which she claimed damages. She further alleged that the water on the walkway was not obvious except on close examination and that she was unaware of its dangerous and unsafe condition; that the defendant knowingly permitted the water to flow upon and accummulate on the walkway for several hours and that he knew, or should have known, of the water collected upon the walkway and of the unsafe and dangerous condition of the walkway.
The defendant in his answer moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in that she failed to exercise due care for her own safety.
In due course the Circuit Judge granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the plaintiff having announced that she did not care to amend further, final judgment was entered.
The appellant here insists that water puddling upon a concrete walkway adjacent to a swimming pool, made the walkway dangerous and that it was negligence on the part of the owner to permit water to remain upon such concrete walkway adjacent to said swimming pool for several hours.
The owner of the premises, which included the bath house, hotel, cocktail lounge and concrete walk adjacent to the bath house, is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons or invitees. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Des Isles v. Evans
...v. City of Clearwater, 1944, 155 Fla. 9, 19 So.2d 406; Pickett v. City of Jacksonville, 1945, 155 Fla. 439, 20 So.2d 484; Andrews v. Narber, Fla. 1952, 59 So.2d 869; Clyde Bar, Inc., v. McClamma, 1917, 152 Fla. 118, 10 So. 2d 916; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 2, p. 324; Shuttleworth v. Crown Ca......
-
Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
...integral condition which was plainly discernible. The facts of the case are mate rially distinguishable from the present situation. Andrews v. Narber, supra, is the third case mentioned as tending to support the judgment appealed. In that case the plaintiff slipped on a wet walkway adjacent......
-
Feigen v. Sokolsky
...the question of negligence was properly decided by the court as a matter of law. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.) See also Andrews v. Narber, Fla., 59 So.2d 869. In the case of Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, Fla., 61 So.2d 477, 478, a customer of a restaurant sustained injuries whe......
-
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc., 2
...v. Prater, supra; Bisnett v. Mowder, 114 Ariz. 213, 560 P.2d 68 (App.1977). Likewise, the two Florida decisions cited, Andrew v. Narber, 59 So.2d 869 (Fla.1952) and Tweedale v. City of St. Petersburg, 125 So.2d 920 (Fla.App.1961), do not discuss this legal Turning next to the contention tha......