Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando
| Decision Date | 21 November 1952 |
| Citation | 61 So.2d 477 |
| Parties | EARLEY v. MORRISON CAFETERIA CO. OF ORLANDO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Donald Walker and Troy C. Musselwhite, Orlando, for appellant.
M. W. Wells, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee.
The appellant was injured when she tripped on a mat in the vestibule of a cafeteria owned by the appellee and sued the appellee to recover for her injuries. Upon motion of the appellee, supported by the deposition of the appellant and an affidavit of the appellee's manager, summary judgment was entered by the trial judge in favor of the appellee. This appeal followed.
The undisputed facts are, briefly, as follows: The appellee maintains in the vestibule of its cafeteria in Orlando a rubber or leather mat, four feet wide and five feet long, and from 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick on the outer edges thereof. The edges are bound with metal and rise vertically from the floor, that is to say, they are not bevelled. The appellant entered the vestibule from the street entrance and walked across the mat to and through a side door leading into the cafeteria proper. There she observed a long line of waiting patrons and decided to leave and come back later. Upon returning to the vestibule en route to the entrance door, she tripped on the edge of the mat and fell.
The appellant alleged that the mat was hidden and concealed by the lower framework and panels of the vestibule to persons re-entering such vestibule from the side door between the vestibule and the cafeteria proper, and that 'a heavy mat with abrupt edges concealed in a vestibule as aforesaid constituted an extreme hazard,' and sought to hold the appellee liable in damages for her injuries on the theory of a 'hidden danger.'
While the rule is well settled that a business invitee is entitled to expect that the proprietor will take reasonable care to discover the actual condition of the premises and either make them safe or warn him of dangerous conditions, it is equally well settled that the proprietor has a right to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses. Miller v. Shull, Fla., 48 So.2d 521. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Price
...City, 165 F.Supp. 381 (N.D.Fla.1958). Cf., Subasky v. The Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 161 Pa.Super. 90, 53 A.2d 840; Early v. Morrison Cafeteria Co., 61 So.2d 477 (Fla.1952); Wall v. A. N. Derringer, Inc., 119 Vt. 36, 117 A.2d 390, 65 A.L.R.2d 467; Hixenbaugh v. J. C. McCrory Co., 145 Pa.Sup......
-
Maas Bros., Inc. v. Bishop, 7446
...on a step or metal strip thereon, where the condition causing the fall is obvious to the sight. See, e.g., Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 477; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., supra; Van Horn v. Food Serv. Equip., Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 528; Grall v. Ri......
-
Molinares v. El Centro Gallego, Inc., s. 87-2148
...premises has a duty to guard against foreseeable harm by maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co., 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 ......
-
Dvorak v. Holiday Inns of America, Inc.
...that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. 2 Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So.2d 477 (Fla.1952); City of Palatka v. Woods, 78 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1955); Becksted v. Riverside Bank of Miami, 85 So.2d 130 (Fla.195......