Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners v. Gitlin

• Decision Date: 25 February 1941
• Citation: 146 Fla. 242,1 So.2d 191
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: ECONOMY CASH & CARRY CLEANERS, Inc., v. GITLIN.

1 So.2d 191

146 Fla. 242

ECONOMY CASH & CARRY CLEANERS, Inc., v. GITLIN.

Florida Supreme Court

February 25, 1941

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1941.

McKay, Dixon & DeJarnette and Louis Heiman, all of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Edward H Brown, Simonhoff & Simonhoff, and Knight & Green, all of Miami, for defendant in error.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This writ of error presents for review a final judgment in the sum of $1,500 entered for the plaintiff below by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, and the recovery was based on the negligence of the defendant as charged in two counts of the declaration viz: (a) the defendant failed and omitted to keep a certain chair used in its business in a proper state of repair, and carelessly and negligencly allowed it to remain in unrepair and in a dangerous condition to persons occupying it; (b) the metal chair furnished by the defendant for the use of its customers was faulty and defective and in an unsafe condition for the use or occupancy of the customers of the defendant that the defendant knew, or by the exercise of due care should have known, that the said chair was faulty and defective and unsafe for the users thereof; that plaintiff when in defendant's place of business as a customer seated herself in the chair, the same collapsed and the plaintiff fell to the floor with great force and violence and was injured.

The case was submitted to a jury on pleas of not guilty and contributory negligence to the declaration and each count thereof. Motions on the part of the defendant for a directed verdict were made at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, and, after all the testimony had been submitted, were denied by the trial court. A motion for a new trial was duly presented and duly considered and an order denying the same made and entered.

The chair in which the plaintiff is alleged to have sustained personal injuries has been certified to this Court and has been carefully examined and considered. When the seat is in the correct position, it is fastened or secured by hooks or clamps attached to the seat and clamped to an iron bar or frame of the chair at the front, and when the seat is properly fastened, it is designed and intended to support the weight of the occupant. If the hooks or clamps are securely fastened then the chair is safe for occupancy, but if the hooks or clamps are unfastened, the seat of the chair may give way and the occupant may fall. A careful inspection or examination is required to determine whether or not the hooks or clamps on the seat of the chair are fastened or unfastened. The chair was purchased or bought by an officer of the defendant corporation, or at his direction, and placed in its place of business for the use and convenience of its customers, and there the plaintiff is alleged to have sustained an injury. If the hooks or clamps of the seat are securely fastened to the cross bar of the frame at the front, then the seat is incapable of giving way and doing an injury to an occupant. It is possible for a person handling the chair or an occupant on leaving the same to unknowingly dislodge or unfasten the hooks or clamps at the front thereof from the cross bar of the frame, and while in this condition the chair may become a dangerous instrumentality.

In the case of J. G. Christopher Co. v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, 58 So. 45, 47, Ann.Cas.1913C, 564, the defendant was engaged in a general machinery and hardware business in the City of Jacksonville and permitted or allowed a hole six feet by four feet to exist in the floor of one of the store rooms opening into a basement...