Haley v. Harvey Bldg., Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1964 |
| Citation | 168 So.2d 330 |
| Parties | Ocie M. HALEY, Appellant, v. HARVEY BUILDING, INC., Appellee. No 4501. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wallis E. Schulle, of Earnest, Pruitt & Schulle, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James S. Robinson, of Sullivan & Robinson, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The plaintiff-appellant appeals a summary final judgment rendered against her and in favor of the defendant-appellee in an action arising out of a slip and fall situation. An opinion had originally been filed affirming the order of the trial court, and Associate Judge Wehle filed a specially concurring opinion. Judge Wehle's concurring remarks motivated the court to give this matter further consideration, and, the time for filing a petition for rehearing not having expired, we decided to withdraw the original opinion and reverse.
The plaintiff was entering an office building, at which time it was raining, and, proceeding across some rubber matting which extended from the doorway towards the elevators, she slipped and fell as she took the first step off the rubber matting onto the marble floor. Appearing in the plaintiff's deposition are the following questions and answers:
'
'A. Slick floor.
'
In opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment the plaintiff tendered two affidavits. One from a woman stated that she had slipped and almost had fallen in the lobby earlier that morning and that the floor was wet and slippery. This occurred at 9:00 A.M., approximately one half hour before the plaintiff's fall. The other affidavit contained the statement of a man who was present when the plaintiff fell. He said that the floor was marble and was wet which caused it to be slippery. Neither affidavit stated that the floor was wet at the particular place where the plaintiff slipped and fell.
If there develops a dangerous condition of a floor, and if this condition has existed for such a length of time that the owner should have known of it, then the owner may be held liable for injuries caused by the dangerous condition. Foor Fair Stores of Fla ., Inc. v. Patty, Fla.App.,1959, 109 So.2d 5, and Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla.App.,1953, 69 So.2d 789. To enable the jury to find for the plaintiff, it must be shown that a dangerous condition existed and that the owner or employees of the owner would have become aware of this condition by exercising reasonable diligence. Of course it must also be shown that the dangerous condition caused the plaintiff's fall.
The affidavits indicate the floor was wet and slippery when the plaintiff slipped and fell, and that the floor was in a similar condition a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to put the defendant on constructive notice. It was not shown that the floor was slippery at the place where the plaintiff fell, although her deposition shows that she thought it was.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment unaccompanied by any supporting affidavits. In Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equipment Company, Fla.App.,App.1962, 138 So.2d 777, Judge Sturgis stated:
'It is elemental that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calvache v. Jackson Memorial Hosp., 91-341
...of time to charge defendant with constructive knowledge. Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 789; Haley v. Harvey Building, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 330. Proof that a dangerous condition existed long enough so that it should have been discovered by the owner defendant may......
-
Hirschenson v. Westway Inc.
...Inc. v. Patty, 109 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla.1959); Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So.2d 789, 791-92 (Fla.1953); Haley v. Harvey Building, Inc., 168 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); see also Mahoney v. Burger King Corporation, 600 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). Plaintiff contends that sinc......
-
Vernatte v. First Nat. Bank of Tampa, 7361
...Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So.2d 730 (Fla.1961); Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, 109 So.2d 5 (Fla.1959); Haley v. Harvey Building, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 330; Grand Union Supermarkets, Inc. v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 'The defendant argues that before the question can a......
-
Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club, 4668
...he is not entitled to a summary judgment regardless of whether the opposing party comes forward with any proof or not. Haley v. Harvey Bldg., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 330. In the Advisory Committee's notes on the 1963 amendment to Federal Rule 56(e), the counterpart of our Florida rule, it i......