Ball v. Ates, LL-151
| Decision Date | 24 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. LL-151,LL-151 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 1023 |
| Parties | Myrtle BALL, Appellant, v. Thomas ATES and Hartford Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Hightower of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, P. A., Pensacola, for appellant.
Philip D. Beall of Beall, Lindsay & Lindsay, P. A., Pensacola, for appellee.
Myrtle Ball fell and injured herself while working for Thomas Ates. Upon a suit against Ates and his insurer, Hartford Insurance Company, the jury verdict found Ates to be five percent negligent. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict by the defendants and Ball appeals. We affirm.
The evidence shows that Ball was injured when she slipped and fell as she attempted to step over a puddle as she was going out to feed Ates' dogs. She testified that the water had been standing in that same place for at least a day, that she knew it was there, and that feeding the dogs had become one of her regular tasks. Under these circumstances we agree with the trial court that there was no showing of negligence on the part of Ates. The risk Ball encountered was an ordinary risk, not an unusual one, and she had knowledge of it equal or superior to that of Ates. In Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), we reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict where a painter placed his ladder on a driveway which he knew had been recently hosed down and then sued the property owner for the injuries suffered when the ladder slipped. In the instant case as in Vermont Mutual the rule is that a defendant's knowledge of danger must be superior to that of a business invitee in order to create a duty to warn of dangers unknown to the plaintiff.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
...where there was "no question of duty to warn, since plaintiff's knowledge was equal with that of the defendants"); Ball v. Ates , 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (citing Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway , 358 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and affirming grant of directed verdict for defe......
-
Alegre v. Shurkey
...v. Gumenick, 358 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), all serve to reinforce my belief. 6 Unless, however, no-duty remains alive and well, the above decisions cannot be squared wi......
-
Emmons v. Baptist Hosp.
...superior to that of the business invitee. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA We next turn to the first theory enumerated abov......
-
Bennett v. Mattison, OO-147
...See Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141, 25 So.2d 205 (1946); Wingard v. McDonald, 348 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), applying the rule similarly to business Absent a statute, I think it questionable whether the rule of caveat emptor or cavea......