Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | DREW; TERRELL; MATHEWS; HOBSON |
| Citation | 63 So.2d 769 |
| Parties | BOWLES et al. v. ELKES PONTIAC CO. |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1952 |
Page 769
v.
ELKES PONTIAC CO.
On Rehearing March 10, 1953.
Page 770
Paul Kickliter and Benjamin C. Sidwell, Tampa, for appellants.
Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellees.
DREW, Justice.
The lower court sustained a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on the authority of Matson v. Tip Top Grocery, 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368. The plaintiffs declined to further amend, final judgment was entered against them and they appealed.
The pertinent portions of the amended complaint, which charges negligence, are as follows:
'1. That on or about the 15th day of November, A.D. 1951, the Defendant was and still is in exclusive possession and control of certain lands and premises in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of Florida.
'2. That at said time there was erected upon said premises, a one story building with a showroom on the ground floor, and that said showroom was at said time in the exclusive possession and control of the Defendant, and was at said time being maintained and operated as a showroom, open to the public, for the exhibition and sale of certain Pontiac automobiles, by said Defendant.
'3. That one entrance to the said showroom is obtained by way of a door leading from an adjoining gasoline service station, operated also by Defendant, said door being designated by a sign above it as 'entrance', 'salesroom and general office.'
'4. That the said Defendant disregarding its duty to maintain its showroom premises in a reasonably safe condition for its customers, lawfully coming therein, negligently and carelessly constructed and maintained the above described entrance leading to and from said showroom in a dangerous and defective condition in that the said door entrance was constructed with a dangerous, unsafe and obscure drop-off being approximately eighteen (18) inches inside the entrance, said drop-off being approximately three (3) inches in depth; that the entrance, drop-off and surrounding floor were on said date, all constructed and maintained of the same color floor material, which, coupled with the slight size of the drop-off, combined to present a hidden
Page 771
and dangerous defect so that one in the reasonable exercise of his ordinary sense cannot distinguish the abrupt change in floor-level or discern the aforementioned drop-off, and that Defendant, in addition, negligently failed to provide any caution sign, handrail, floor mat, or other method to put one on notice that the floor level dropped off abruptly less than one step inside the door.'5. That on the said day and for a long time prior thereto, the Defendant had actual knowledge and notice of the defective, dangerous and obscure condition as aforesaid of the said entrance, on its premises, as hereinbefore described, or that it should have had knowledge and notice of such condition of said entrance.
'6. That the negligence and carelessness of the said Defendant consisted in constructing and maintaining the said entrance in the defective, obscure and dangerous condition as hereinbefore described, in paragraph four, and in failing to warn the Plaintiff by signs or other appropriate methods, of the dangerous, obscure and unsafe condition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 07-23205-CIV.
...dangerous condition requiring a duty to warn. Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla.1983); see also Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla.1952); Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368 (1942); Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla.1955) ("[N]o one en......
-
Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, s. 90-1128
...with the color of the driveway below. The court quoted from an earlier Florida Supreme Court opinion, Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla.1952), that "[i]t is a matter of common knowledge that 'the sidewalks and the drop-off[s] from such sidewalks to the streets have the sam......
-
Chevraux v. Nahas, No. 52460
...for their negligence. See Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E.2d 461, and Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., Fla., 63 So.2d 769, 771--772. V. With respect to claimed failure by defendants to give warning, the record reveals they did apply a coat of yellow paint to the ......
-
Krol v. City of Orlando, No. 5D00-209.
...multiple floor levels in a dimly lit and overcrowded room in a home are not inherently dangerous conditions); Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769 (Fla.1952) (concluding that uneven floor levels in public places do not constitute latent, hidden, and dangerous conditions); Rosenfeld (ho......
-
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc., 07-23205-CIV.
...dangerous condition requiring a duty to warn. Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla.1983); see also Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla.1952); Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368 (1942); Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla.1955) ("[N]o one en......
-
Gorin v. City of St. Augustine
...with the color of the driveway below. The court quoted from an earlier Florida Supreme Court opinion, Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla.1952), that "[i]t is a matter of common knowledge that 'the sidewalks and the drop-off[s] from such sidewalks to the streets have the sam......
-
Krol v. City of Orlando, 5D00-209.
...multiple floor levels in a dimly lit and overcrowded room in a home are not inherently dangerous conditions); Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769 (Fla.1952) (concluding that uneven floor levels in public places do not constitute latent, hidden, and dangerous conditions); Rosenfeld (ho......
-
Chevraux v. Nahas, 52460
...insurers, not for their negligence. See Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, 250 N.C. 151, 108 S.E.2d 461, and Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., Fla., 63 So.2d 769, 771--772. V. With respect to claimed failure by defendants to give warning, the record reveals they did apply a coat of yellow......