Carter v. Parker, 5682
| Decision Date | 16 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5682,5682 |
| Citation | 183 So.2d 3 |
| Parties | Natalie H. CARTER and Hubert M. Carter, her husband, Appellants, v. Jack C. PARKER, Sr., and Lydia Parker, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rolfe D. Duggar and Robert E. Beach of Roney & Beach, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Michael B. Piper, of Harris, Barrett, Dew & Sieber, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees, defendants below.
Suit was filed to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff wife when she tripped over the leg of a chair in defendants' cocktail lounge. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants were negligent in maintaining their premises in such a dimly lit state as to constitute a danger to patrons of the establishment, in arranging their tables and chairs in a crowded and congested manner, and in using chairs which had 'extreme protruding legs' and thus created a dangerous condition to persons moving about the premises.
Defendants filed no answer, but moved for summary judgment based upon the pleadings and plaintiff-wife's deposition. The trial court entered summary judgment in defendants' favor without stating the basis for its ruling.
The question before us is whether the pleadings and deposition show the existence of any issue of material fact upon which reasonable men might disagree. It is well settled that a moving party for summary judgment admits the basic facts established favorable to the adverse party and such facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the adverse party. Smith v. Musso, 151 So.2d 475 (D.C.A.Fla.1963). Furthermore, extreme caution should be exercised in granting summary judgments in negligence cases, since the issue of negligence is ordinarily a jury question. Saunders v. Kaplan, 101 So.2d 181 (D.C.A.Fla.1958). Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendants' lounge was kept in a darkened state; that the tables and chairs were arranged in a congested and hazardous manner; that the chairs on the premises were constructed in such a manner as to create a dangerous condition; and that because of the dimly lit atmosphere, patrons of the lounge were not aware of these dangerous conditions. Plaintiff-wife's deposition tends to support the fact that the lounge was dark; that the tables and chairs were close together; and that the base of these chairs protruded at an extreme angle.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molinares v. El Centro Gallego, Inc., s. 87-2148
...61 So.2d 477 (Fla.1953); Johnson v. Hatoum, 239 So.2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. dismissed, 244 So.2d 740 (Fla.1971); Carter v. Parker, 183 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Schatz. The duty extends to providing a reasonably safe method of egress and ingress for business invitees. Marhefka v. ......
-
Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 38722
...have readily found arising from such foreseeability a duty on the part of travernkeepers to protect other customers. In Carter v. Parker, 183 So.2d 3 (Fla.App.2d 1966), where a woman patron tripped over a chair leg in the tavern, the Second District Court reversed summary judgment for defen......
-
Chelton v. Tallahassee-Leon County Civic Center Authority, TALLAHASSEE-LEON
...remain regarding the adequacy of the lighting of the stairways. Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., 66 So.2d 218 (Fla.1953); Carter v. Parker, 183 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Material issues remain as to whether the policy of the Civic Center regarding the duties of its ushers was adequate and w......
-
Bianchi v. Garber
...plaintiff tripped and fell presented questions for the jury precluding summary judgment in favor of the defendant.); Carter v. Parker, 183 So.2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). See generally Wood v. Camp, 284 So.2d 691 (Fla.1973); Post v. Lunney, 261 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 4......