Goldin v. Lipkind
Decision Date | 19 December 1950 |
Citation | 49 So.2d 539,27 A.L.R.2d 816 |
Parties | GOLDIN v. LIPKIND. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Louis Glick, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellees.
Involved on this appeal is the question of whether or not plaintiff-appellant's amended complaint (declaration) states a cause of action. The Court below held that it did not and, accordingly, entered a final judgment on motion to dismiss for the defendant-appellee, and plaintiff appealed. Pertinent allegations of the amended complaint are as follows:
'2. On or about March 29th, 1950, at about 6:25 o'clock, p. m., the plaintiff was a lawful paying guest of the Harman Villa Hotel, 354 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida, leased and operated by the defendant, Nathan Lipkind; at said time, plaintiff was lawfully in and about said premises, and had entered said premises through the stairway at the Washington Avenue entrance of said hotel, leading from the outside to the second storey. Upon arriving at the second floor, the plaintiff walked down a hallway, which was unlighted and dark, at the time, despite the fact that evening had set in. The plaintiff was compelled to walk through the said hallway in order to reach her room at the end of said hallway. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence in failing to provide proper lighting, and as the direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence in leaving a bed mattress in said hallway, the plaintiff suddenly tripped and fell over said mattress, which the defendant had negligently left in said hallway, and which was lying, at said time, across the floor of the said hallway.
'3. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant's failure to provide proper lighting at said time, and as direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence in leaving the mattress in said hallway, the plaintiff, Bessie Goldin, was greatly and severely injured, sustaining great and excruciating pain and suffering, a complete comminuted, fractured right radius, lower third, with displacements of the fragments.
'4. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant's failure to provide proper lighting at said time, and as the direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence in leaving the mattress in said hallway, the plaintiff, Bessie Goldin, has continued to suffer excruciating pains throughout the length of her entire right arm and right shoulder, has been forced to have her right forearm in an uncomfortable and bulky cast, and will be forced to wear this cast for an approximate period of six (6) weeks, and said plaintiff further says that her condition is permanent and that she has been gravely and permanently damaged, and that her nervous system was severely shocked and injured.
'5. As the direct and proximate result of the defendant's failure to provide proper lighting at said time, and as the direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence in leaving the mattress in said hallway, the plaintiff, Bessie Goldin, has been hindered and prevented from performing and carrying on the duties of her lawful employment for a long period of time, and, in fact, is still prevented and hindered from performing and carrying on the duties of her lawful employment, and may be so prevented and hindered for the rest of her natural life, to her great monetary loss.
bills, hospital bills, nursing, drugs, x-rays, and other related medical needs and services in and about the care of said injuries to herself.
'Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), and the plaintiff furthermore demands a trial by jury in this action.'
In the case of Kasanof v. Embry-Riddle Co., 157 Fla. 677, 26 So.2d 889, 891, the legal sufficiency of a declaration was before the Court, and, in sustaining the declaration, we in part said:
Section 511.13, F.S.A., requires that every hotel, rooming house, apartment house, tenement house, restaurant, lunch or sandwich stand or counter in the State of Florida shall be properly plumbed, lighted, heated and ventilated and shall be conducted in every department with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Modlin v. Washington Ave. Food Center, Inc.
...Putnam Lumber Co. v. Berry, 146 Fla. 595, 2 So.2d 133 (1941) [master's duty to provide safe place to work]; Goldin v. Lipkind, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 539, 27 A.L.R.2d 816 [innkeeper's duty to maintain safe premises]; Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 832 [owner'......
-
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc.
...Id. at 468. But liability for the breach of a nondelegable duty arises from direct-instead of imputed-liability. See Goldin v. Lipkind, 49 So.2d 539, 541 (Fla.1950) ("The duty of maintaining safe premises ... cannot be delegated to another."); U.S. Sec. Servs. Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665......
-
Brant v. Van Zandt
...the judgment should be affirmed upon the authority of Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 218 and Goldin v. Lipkind, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 539, 27 A.L.R.2d 816. In Breau v. Whitmore, supra, plaintiff walked into a scaffold at eye level in a dark hallway although he had seen the c......
-
Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig
...negligence is ordinarily and peculiarly a question of fact for the jury. Frash v. Sarres, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 924; Goldin v. Lipkind, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 539, 27 A.L.R.2d 816; Steele v. Independent Fish Co., 152 Fla. 739, 13 So.2d 14; Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Co., 152 Fla. 3, 10 So.2d 4......