Gale v. Tuerk
Decision Date | 20 June 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 545,545 |
Citation | 200 So.2d 261 |
Parties | Thomas Robert GALE, a minor, By and Through his father and next friend, Robert Gale, and Robert Gale, Individually, Appellants, v. Fred TUERK and Adriana Tuerk, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Larry Klein, of Miller, Cone, Owen, Wagner & Nugent, West Palm Beach, and L. B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, for appellants.
Stephen C. McAliley, of Fee Parker & Neill, Fort Pierce, for appellees.
This is a negligence action. Appellants were the plaintiffs and appellees, the defendants. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' third amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.
Our task on appeal is to determine if plaintiffs' third amended complaint states a cause of action. In this connection we are limited to a review of the material contained within the four corners of the complaint and must accept the well plead allegations of the complaint as true. Maloy, Fla.Appellate Proc. & Prac., § 10.06.
Plaintiffs allege that, at the invitation of the defendant, the minor plaintiff, Thomas Robert Gale, age 11 years, attended a birthday party given by the defendant at her home for her son. There were approximately 15 boys of like age in attendance.
Defendant personally planned and supervised the party and guests. She presented each of the guests with a metal slingshot as a birthday party favor. She was physically present and aware that the children were shooting sea grapes at one another with these slingshots.
The gravamen of the complaint reflects that, despite her knowledge of the danger involved, the defendant recklessly, wantonly and willfully allowed the children to continue to shoot sea grapes at each other, in her physical presence, without warning the children of the danger or in any way restraining them. She, in fact, encouraged this dangerous activity by allowing the children to proceed to a playhouse on the beach which was used as a 'fort' in their sea grape battle. One of the sea grapes struck the right eye of plaintiff, causing injury and subsequent blindness in that eye.
It is well settled that, when a person is a social guest of another, the relation created between the parties is one of licensor and licensee. 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence, § 56; 18 Fla.Law & Practice, Negligence, § 11. And this relation exists even though the injury complained of is unconnected to the condition of the premises. See annotation, 79 A.L.R.2d 990.
A licensor owes a licensee a duty to refrain from wanton negligence or willful misconduct which would injure him and to refrain from intentionally exposing him to danger. 23 Fla.Jur., Ne...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LeBase v. Britz, 69--393
...guest and hence a licensee. Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; Lowery v. Rosenburg, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 321; Gale v. Tuerk, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 261. The duty of a host to his guest is to refrain from wanton negligence or willful misconduct which would injure him or to refra......
-
Billen v. Hix
...status. Lunney v. Post, supra; Maxymow v. Lake Maggiore Baptist Church of St. Petersubrg, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 792. In Gale v. Tuerk, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 261, this court expressly held that '. . . when a person is a social guest of another, the relation created between the parties is......
-
Maxymow v. Lake Maggiore Baptist Church of St. Petersburg
...or willful misconduct which would injure the licensee or to refrain from intentionally exposing the licensee to danger. Gale v. Tuerk, 200 So.2d 261 (Fla.App.1967). McNulty v. Hurley, supra. City of Boca Raton v. Mattef, There is no allegation in the amended complaint of wanton negligence o......
-
Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 69--744
...entitle plaintiff to the relief for which she asks. Petterson v. Concrete Construction, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 191; Gale v. Tuerk, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 261; C.D. Utility Corporation v. Maxwell, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 643; Bailey v. Folks, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d An examination of......