Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 89-519

Decision Date15 February 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-519,89-519
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D457 CIRCLE K CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., etc., Appellants, v. Thelma FERGUSON, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

A. Wade James of Hampp & Schneikart, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Glen C. Abbott of Crider & Abbott, P.A., Crystal River, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

Landowner, a convenience store with gas pumps, has an asphalt parking lot in which is located areas of concrete which apparently cover underground gasoline tanks. The joint where the asphalt and concrete meet is not perfect, the concrete being at places higher than the asphalt. Invitee stubbed her toe on the ridge between these surfaces and suffered injuries for which she sued the convenience store. The accident occurred at 2:30 p.m. on a dry and sunny day in the open parking lot where nothing obstructed a view of the surface of the parking lot.

At trial, at the close of the invitee's case, the trial judge directed a verdict for the landowner based on Casby v. Flint, 520 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988) and Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138 (Fla.1955). Thereafter, however, the court granted invitee's motion for new trial based on the argument that the jury could have found the edge between the concrete and asphalt constituted a hidden danger under Pensacola Restaurant Supply Co. v. Davison, 266 So.2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

After a review of the issues and evidence in the case, we hold the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict for the landowner and in error in granting a new trial. Some conditions are simply so open and obvious, so common and so ordinarily innocuous, that they can be held as a matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition. In addition to Casby and Hoag, see Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla.1983); Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769 (Fla.1952); K.G. v. Winter Springs Community Evangelical Congregational Church, 509 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Crawford v. Miller, 542 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); and Prager v. Marks Brothers Co., 483 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte, 553 So.2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Haynes v. Lloyd, 533 So.2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

The order granting new trial is

REVERSED.

HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc., 07-23205-CIV.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • September 4, 2008
    ...Country Club. Inc., Case No. 6:03CV1652ORL18KRS, 2005 WL 1073926, at *2 (M.D.Fla.2005) (quoting Circle K. Convenience Stores Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990)); accord Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.-3d), rev. denied, 574 So.2......
  • Marriott International, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 25, 2003
    ...v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA),review denied, 604 So.2d 486 (Fla.1992); and Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Marriott also cites several cases from other courts: Casby v. Flint, 520 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988); Schoen v. Gi......
  • Gorin v. City of St. Augustine
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1992
    ...slab of concrete, all on the same level." Aventura is also consistent with our earlier decision in Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), where we stated, "Some conditions are simply so open and obvious, so common and so ordinarily innocuous......
  • Kopf v. City of Miami Beach
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 1995
    ...or construction which involve conditions which are said to be "so common and ordinarily innocuous," Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), that they do not involve any breach of duty--that is, any negligence--on the part of the defendant lan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT