Food Fair Stores of Fla., Inc. v. Patty
| Decision Date | 13 February 1959 |
| Citation | 109 So.2d 5 |
| Parties | FOOD FAIR STORES OF FLORIDA, INC., Petitioner, v. Angelina PATTY, Respondent |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Brown, Dean, Adams & Fischer and L. N. Preddy, Miami, for petitioner.
Louis Vernell and Harold Bellman, Miami Beach, for respondent.
By petition for certiorari Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. requests us to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, on the ground that it is in direct conflict on the same point of law with prior decisions of this court. Article V, Section 4, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.
The opinion which we are requested to review is Patty v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 881. We must determine whether the cited decision comes into conflict on the same point of law with prior decisions of this court illustrated by Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 789, and Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482.
The factual situation is adequately summarized in the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The case presented to the trial judge as reflected by the opinion of the appellate court was a typical grocery store 'green bean slip and fall' problem. As will be seen from an examination of the Court of Appeal opinion, the complainant Mrs. Patty charged that she was injured when she slipped on a green bean in a Food Fair Store. She alleged that the store 'carelessly and negligently left several beans' on the floor. The store defended by denying negligence and charging contributory negligence. The trial court had before it the pleadings and a deposition of Mrs. Patty. According to the Court of Appeal opinion the sum of the deposition was that Mrs. Patty knew of no witnesses to the fall nor could she offer any evidence as to how the beans reached the floor or the length of time they had been there. By its answer the store asserted contributory negligence, alleging, with support in the deposition, that Mrs. Patty had been in the store several times, that on previous occasions she had passed over the same spot and had observed that the store was thoroughly littered with beans, vegetables and other food stuffs, that she failed to 'look down' in the instant situation and as a result slipped and fell. The trial judge had the view that the deposition of the plaintiff failed to show the presence of any negligence on the part of the defendant. On the contrary he apparently held that the deposition established that it would be impossible for Mrs. Patty to make a case against the store. He awarded a summary judgment in favor of the store.
By its cited opinion the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed the trial judge. The appellate court had the view that since the grocery store failed to offer any testimony or affidavits answering the charges of negligence contained in the complaint it was not entitled to the summary judgment, regardless of the factual situation reflected by Mrs. Patty's own deposition.
The only record before us is the petition for certiorari and the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The parties have filed briefs but no appendices. It appears to us that the decision of the Court of Appeal collides directly with prior decisions of this court on identical questions of law.
As we read the opinion of the Court of Appeal, it, in sum, holds that although Mrs. Patty, the respondent here, by her own deposition stated that there were no witnesses to her injury, that she could offer no evidence as to the length of time the beans had been on the floor, that she could not establish whether the store or some other agency was responsible for the condition of the floor nevertheless, it still remained the responsibility of the grocery store on its motion for summary judgment to offer proofs to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
...of the rules of this Court's decisions in Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So.2d 730 (Fla.1961); Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, 109 So.2d 5 (Fla.1959); and Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So.2d 789 (Fla.1953). In Patty, this Court stated the rule to be: The established r......
-
Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp.
...entered summary judgment for the defendants. F & R Builders v. Lowell Dunn Co., 372 So.2d 468 (Fla.1979); Food Fair Stores of Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So.2d 5 (Fla.1959); Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403 (Fla.1954); Adkins v. Economy Eng'g Co., 495 So.2d 247 (Fla. 2d DC......
-
Chelton v. Tallahassee-Leon County Civic Center Authority, TALLAHASSEE-LEON
...from the pleadings, affidavits, and discovery that a plaintiff will not be able to prove his case at trial, see Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, 109 So.2d 5 (Fla.1959); Connell v. Sledge, 306 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla.1976), a review of th......
-
Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 30991
...was apparent. He thereupon granted Food Fair's motion for summary judgment on the authority of our opinion in Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, Fla., 1959, 109 So.2d 5. Solely on the basis of the statement from the affidavit of Nathan Thomas which we have quoted above, the Court o......