Goldberg v. Straus
| Decision Date | 27 April 1950 |
| Citation | 45 So.2d 883 |
| Parties | GOLDBERG v. STRAUS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Helen Wassman, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellee.
The plaintiff and sued the defendant to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by stepping into a hole on the lawn of the residence property of the defendant. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained with leave to plead over. Subsequently, a demurrer was sustained to an amended declaration and judgment was entered in bar of the action. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.
The amended declaration to which the demurrer was sustained alleges, in substance, that the defendant, who occupied the property in question as a family dwelling, invited a number of guests including the plaintiff to attend an afternoon party or reception to be held in the patio of the premises; that the plaintiff accepted the invitation and came to the patio as the invited guest of the defendant; that at said time and place there was 'a deep hole in the lawn of defendant's said patio * * * the span of a man's hand in diameter, was uneven and rough, and at its lowest point was five inches in depth * * * contained small loose stones, pebbles and pieces of rock, and * * * constituted a dangerous and hazardous condition, dangerous to life and limb to those walking upon the said lawn * * * that plaintiff had no knowledge or notice whatsoever of the existence of the said hole * * *'; that the defendant, his agents, servants and employees, 'knew of the existence of the said hole, its said nature and its said contents as hereinbefore described, and ought to have known thereof, and could have known thereof, by the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care, in sufficient time to have rendered the same safe prior to the time of the occurrence of the accident,' yet despite his duty in this regard, the defendant carelessly and negligently 'permitted and caused the said hole above described to be left open and unguarded * * * and in disregard of his duty to give warning and notice of the said hole and its nature and contents as above set forth, instructed plaintiff and other guests to cross the lawn containing the said hole, to the refreshment tables that had been set up in the rear of said patio * * * that plaintiff, complying with said instructions, started to walk across the said lawn to the said refreshment tables, in a careful manner, when she stepped into the said hole, her foot got caught therein, and she was caused to fall with force and violence and was severely injured * * *'
The question is whether the allegations of the amended declaration are sufficient to state a cause of action for recovery against the defendant.
By the great weight of authority, where one is invited to come upon the premises of another as a guest for social purposes, the relation created between the parties is, in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfson v. Chelist
...42 N.Y.S. 592; Laube v. Stevenson, 137 Conn. 469, 78 A.2d 693, 25 A.L.R.2d 592; Sanders v. Brown, 73 Ariz. 116, 238 P.2d 941; Goldberg v. Straus, Fla., 45 So.2d 883; McNamara v. Hall, 38 Wash.2d 864, 233 P.2d 852; Keretian v. Asadourian, 349 Ill.App. 390, 110 N.E.2d 679; Maher v. Voss, 7 Te......
-
Ralls v. Caliendo
...1018, 111 N.Y.S.2d 714; cases collected in Note, 25 A.L.R.2d 598.) See, also, Busch v. Gaglio, 207 Va. 343, 150 S.E.2d 110; Goldberg v. Straus, Fla., 45 So.2d 883; Harper on Torts, 3d Ed., Sec. 98; Restatement of the Law of Torts (1934), Sec. 342; Anno. 92 A.L.R. Our decisions conform to th......
-
Roberts v. Beebe, 44871
...1018, 111 N.Y.S.2d 714; cases collected in Note, 25 A.L.R.2d 598.) See, also, Busch v. Gaglio, 207 Va. 343, 150 S.E.2d 110; Goldberg v. Straus, Fla., 45 So.2d 883; Harper on Torts, 3d Ed. Sec. 98; Restatement of the Law of Torts (1934), Sec. 342; Anno. 92 A.L.R. 'Our decisions conform to th......
-
Banks v. Mason, 1946
...The deceased had not attained the status of invitee as her presence on the premises was for purely social reasons. Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 185. By no stretch of the imagination could one find a benefit to the landowner by the presenc......