Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon

• Decision Date: 16 May 1941
• Citation: 147 Fla. 123,2 So.2d 376
• Parties: BREEDING'S DANIA DRUG CO. v. RUNYON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

2 So.2d 376

147 Fla. 123

BREEDING'S DANIA DRUG CO. v. RUNYON.

Florida Supreme Court

May 16, 1941

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1941.

McKay, Dixon & DeJarnette, of Miami, for plaintiffs in error Breeding's Dania Drug Co., James M. Breeding and Jersey Ice Cream Co.

Morehead & Pallot, of Miami, for plaintiff in error Lyon Electric Co.

E. F. P Brigham and Gramling & Gramling, all of Miami, for defendant in error.

ADAMS, Justice.

Plaintiff recovered a $20,000 judgment against the defendants as joint tort feasors.

The plaintiff, a refrigeration man, was summouned by defendant Breeding, to make certain repairs on some electrical refrigeration equipment in his drug store.

Upon arriving plaintiff pulled the switch to disconnect the current from the compressor. Apparently the current was off, however, the pulling of the switch cut off only 110 of the 220 volts. In the course of the work the plaintiff's body came in contact with the compressor carrying 110 volts, resulting in his injury.

Negligence is charged to Lyon Electric Company for improper wiring. Jersey Ice Cream Company is charged with installing the refrigeration equipment and leaving it to be operated after having knowledge that the wiring was defective and dangerous. Liability is charged to Breeding and Breeding Dania Drug Company for using the aforesaid equipment without inspection as required by city ordinance.

The record convinces us that the equipment was defectively wired. We are also satisfied that the defective wiring was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Did the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to show the concurring negligence of all the defendants caused the injury? Louisville & N. R. R Co. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257, 65 So. 8, 12, L.R.A.1915C, 20:

'If their acts of negligence, however separate and distinct in themselves, are concurrent in producing the injury, their liability is joint as well as several. * * * Each becomes liable because of his neglect of duty, and they are jointly liable for the single injury inflicted because the acts or omissions of both have contributed to it.'

There was sufficient evidence before the jury that the electrical work was done by defendant, Lyon Electric Company. There was sufficient evidence before the jury that the refrigerating equipment was installed by defendant, Jersey Ice Cream Company, and that its agent knew of the dangerous condition.

The other defendants used the equipment approximately one year without an inspection as required by city ordinance. The occupant of premises is liable for latent defects which proximately cause injury to his invitees. The law fixes the duty of the occupant to exercise a reasonable degree of care commensurate with the surrounding circumstances. King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 So. 659, Ann.Cas.1916C, 163. The evidence is legally sufficient to submit the case to the jury. The probative weight of the testimony is for the jury. The verdict should not be set aside in the absence of a clear showing that it is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

The defendant Jersey Ice Cream Company, disclaims liability because the refrigerating equipment was installed by an independent contractor. With this we do not agree. The Ice Cream Company insists it did not make the electric connection and is for that reason not liable. The Ice Cream Company, having undertaken to install the equipment, is obligated to install same in a reasonably safe manner. Its servant...