Holland v. Verheul, 90-03546
| Decision Date | 09 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-03546,90-03546 |
| Citation | 583 So.2d 788 |
| Parties | Beverly HOLLAND and Thomas Holland, Appellants, v. Gustav VERHEUL and Elizabeth Verheul, d/b/a Meadows Coiffures Beauty Salon, Appellees. 583 So.2d 788, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2123 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robin M. Orosz and Robert G. Lyons of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for appellants.
Patricia D. Prouty of Price, Price & Prouty, Chartered, Bradenton, for appellees.
Beverly and Thomas Holland seek review of the trial court's order of final summary judgment in favor of appellees in this personal injury action. We reverse.
On June 17, 1989, Mrs. Holland was present as a patron at Meadows Beauty Salon owned by appellees. After Mrs. Holland's beauty appointment, as she was departing from the premises, she realized that she had left a package on the counter next to the station where she had been seated. While walking in a normal fashion, Mrs. Holland came abruptly to a halt, lurched forward and fell onto the tile floor. As a result of the fall, Mrs. Holland sustained injuries including a fractured left hip. Mr. Holland, as Mrs. Holland's spouse, suffered derivative damages.
The Hollands filed suit against appellees based on negligence, specifically that appellees failed to properly maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of the danger present upon the premises. Appellees denied liability and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment alleged that the Hollands were unable to identify a particular defect that caused Mrs. Holland's injuries. Appellants filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment by engineer/contractor Norman Nixon. In his affidavit, Mr. Nixon stated that he personally inspected the beauty salon and the condition of the floor on the premises. Upon inspection, Mr. Nixon found a tile which was over one-eighth of an inch higher than the rest of the flooring. Mr. Nixon also stated that the difference in the height of the tiles "creates a dangerous, hazardous, and/or unsafe condition for persons traversing said premises." The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment.
Shirley Robertson, a patron of appellees' business, present at the time of the incident, testified that after Mrs. Holland's fall there was discussion among the customers and beauticians about what had caused the fall. There was discussion of the appearance of a slight raise in the floor in the area where Mrs. Holland had fallen. Ms. Robertson testified that Mrs. Holland was walking and then lurched as she fell as if she bumped something or caught her foot on something.
Sharon Leverone, an employee of appellees' business, testified that there was one tile on the floor that was a little raised. She also stated that she had tripped on the raised tile before and had complained to appellees about it before Mrs. Holland's fall. She testified that she saw Mrs. Holland's shoe come down on a tile in the area of the floor where the raised tile was located. Ms. Leverone also testified that another employee, Carol Christensen, had complained about a raised tile in the same area. Ms. Leverone stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Ins. Co.
...the case. If the record raises the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, then summary judgment is improper." Holland v. Verheul, 583 So.2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see Fine Arts Museums Found. v. First Nat. in Palm Beach, a Div. of First Union Nat. Bank of Florida, 633 So.2d 1179 (......
-
Harkless v. Laubhan
...judgment is improper." Alderman v. BCI Eng'rs & Scientists, Inc. , 68 So.3d 396, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Holland v. Verheul , 583 So.2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ). Whether or not a party is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is an issue of material fact which may prom......
-
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc.
...issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper." Holland v. Verheul, 583 So.2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).III. DISCUSSION A. Introduction The circuit court's rulings denying Mr. Armiger's motion to amend his complaint and gra......
-
Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Agency Inc., 93-978
...doubt that an issue [of material fact] might exist, summary judgment is improper." Craig, 631 So.2d at 377, citing, Holland v. Verheul, 583 So.2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Particular caution should be employed when granting summary judgment in negligence actions. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.......