Handel v. Rudnick
| Decision Date | 04 February 1955 |
| Citation | 78 So.2d 709,58 A.L.R.2d 1174 |
| Parties | Daniel HANDEL, trading and doing business as the London Arms Hotel, Appellant, v. Jennie Y. RUDNICK, a widow, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellant.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham, J. B. Spence and Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellee.
Appellee, a paying guest at appellant's hotel in Miami Beach, while descending the stairs from the first floor to the lobby, caught her heel on a button protruding from one of the steps and catapulated to the tile floor below. She sustained a severe fracture of her right elbow, from which she had only a limited recovery. She was permanently disqualified to continue her occupation as hair dresser in that she lost the use of her right arm. She brought this suit alleging negligence on the part of her landlord and secured a verdict and judgment for $22,500. This appeal is from that judgment.
The only questions that are properly before us are (1) the verdict and judgment are not supported by competent evidence and (2) the verdict is excessive.
The evidence conclusively shows that the carpet covering the tile steps was removed in 1938, that the buttons which held it in place were left in the steps where they have remained and that the button on which appellee tripped protruded as much as the thickness of a silver dollar. Defendant had been operating the hotel nine months when the plaintiff was injured. The button had been in the steps for many years and during the period of defendant's lease the employees swept the stairs once or twice daily so there was no question that defendant was on knowledge of the defect. True, there are some conflicts in the evidence but there was ample evidence to support the verdict and judgment.
Defendant makes much ado about the smallness of the button but this may have been the very factor that made it dangerous. If it had been big as a chair or other furniture it might have put a guest on notice. Guests are entitled to assume that steps and passageways are clear and devoid of dangerous impediments. The contention that smallness is not dangerous as a matter of law has been repeatedly rejected. Haverkost v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Mo.App., 193 S.W.2d 357; McGenty v. John A. Stephenson & Co., 218 Minn. 311, 15 N.W.2d 874; Stewart v. George B. Peck Co., 234 Mo.App. 864, 135 S.W.2d 405; Sullivan v. S. S. Kresge Co., 236 Mo.App. 1191, 163 S.W.2d 811; Lewis v. National Bellas Hess, Mo.App., 152 S.W.2d 674; Schroeffel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 132 Pa.Super. 233, 200 A. 694; Schwartz v. Feinberg, 306 Mass. 331, 28 N.E.2d 249; Hellyer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 62 App.D.C. 318, 67 F.2d 584; Schoonmaker v. Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank, 288 N.Y. 578, 42 N.E.2d 26. The doctrine of these cases holds that it was a question for the jury.
Likewise the courts have subscribed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
...Lumber Co. v. King, 131 Fla. 342, 177 So. 313, 318; Orr v. Avon Florida Citrus Corp., 130 Fla. 306, 177 So. 612; Handel v. Rudnick (Fla.), 78 So.2d 709; Ney v. Yellow Cab Co., 2 Ill.2d 74, 84, 117 N.E.2d 74, 51 A.L.R.2d 624,) and we find it stated in Cobb v. Twitchell, 91 Fla. 539, 108 So. ......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. McKelvey
...or that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or other improper motive. Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 480; Handel v. Rudnick, Fla.1955,78 So.2d 709; Sproule v. Nelson, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 478; Little River Bank & Trust Company v. Magoffin, Fla.1968, 100 So.2d 626; Florida East Coa......
-
Grier v. Metropolitan Dade County
...and the like as to become dangerous to the foot traveler." 2 Even though actual notice was not in question in that case, Handel v. Rudnick, 78 So.2d 709, 710 (Fla.1955), is otherwise closely in point. There, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that a carpet button on a hotel step whic......
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 83-2686
...DCA), cert. dismissed, 265 So.2d 50 (Fla.1972). If evidence supports an award of damages, the award may not be disturbed. Hendel v. Rudnick, 78 So.2d 709 (Fla.1955); Allied Chemical Corp. v. Eubanks Industries, Inc., 155 So.2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). A review of the record reveals sufficien......