Hoag v. Moeller
| Citation | 82 So.2d 138 |
| Parties | Ida HOAG, Appellant, v. Helen MOELLER, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1955 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
P. Donald DeHoff and Marie C. Broetzman, Jacksonville, for appellant.
John M. McNatt, Jacksonville, for appellee.
In her complaint the appellant alleged that she was requested by the appellee to go into appellee's home to keep under surveillance a workman who was inspecting 'burglar bars' that had been recently installed. While the appellant was following the workman around they passed from the bedroom into the dining room. Because the difference in the levels of the floors in the two rooms was from 'three and a half to four inches' the appellant stumbled, fell and was injured. It was averred that the rooms were in semi-darkness because the blinds were partly drawn and appellee 'had not given (the appellant) permission' to raise them. The appellant charged that because of the dim light and the sameness of the color of the floors in both rooms, the difference in elevation was not obvious, and that her assumption that the place was safe and that no danger was to be apprehended, caused her downfall.
At the conclusion of the testimony introduced in behalf of the appellant, the court indicated that the motion of the appellee for a directed verdict would be granted so the appellant took a nonsuit. This appeal followed.
From the appellant's own testimony it appears that the mishap occurred at nine-thirty in the morning. She had been watching the workman as he went to various places in the house and performed his duties without the aid of any artificial light. Evidently she was following the workman at the very time she stepped through French doors and fell. There was evidence that although the floors of the two rooms were the same color, the dining room which appellant was entering was partly covered by a rug, and extending from that rug to the sill where she stumbled was a small rug of different design, so her ability to see the disparity in floor levels could not have been affected by the sameness of the color of the floors in the rooms of exit and entry.
From the appellant's own testimony and the evidence introduced while she was testifying it is plain that there was sufficient light for her safely to make her way, and that there was no reason for her being deceived by the sameness of the color of the floors in the two rooms. And besides, the workman she was watching served...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc., 07-23205-CIV.
...v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla.1952); Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368 (1942); Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla.1955) ("[N]o one entering a home can assume that the floors of all rooms in the same story have the same level, blindly travel on......
-
Marriott International, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez
...cites several cases from other courts: Casby v. Flint, 520 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988); Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla.1983); Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138 (Fla.1955); Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA),review denied, 574 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1990); McAllister v. Robbins,......
-
Gorin v. City of St. Augustine
...in floor levels into a dangerous situation creating a duty to warn." And in Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d at 76, quoting Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla.1955), the court held that "a difference in floor levels does not of itself constitute failure to use due care...." (Emphasis added......
-
Kopf v. City of Miami Beach
...on the part of the homeowner to warn of possible changes in floor levels."); see Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla.1983); Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138 (Fla.1955); Circle K, 556 So.2d at 1207; McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Crawford v. Miller, 542 So.2d 1050 (F......