Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., AU-325
| Decision Date | 13 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AU-325,AU-325 |
| Citation | 453 So.2d 139 |
| Parties | Pfilip G. HUNT, Jr., Appellant, v. SLIPPERY DIP OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Douglas H. Morford of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby, Taylor & Corrigan, Jacksonville, for appellant.
William T. Stone of Cowles, Coker, Myers, Schickel & Pierce, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of appellee, Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., in a negligence action. We affirm.
The appellant was injured at a water slide operated by the appellee. The appellant, who was 18 years old at the time of the injury, was attempting to "jump the wall," which consisted of crossing over a concrete wall that separated two adjoining troughs. Before the appellant's accident, he had been down the slide 20 to 25 times that day (usually attempting to "jump the wall" in tandem with his girlfriend, who successfully completed the maneuver while appellant did not) and had used the same slide on two previous occasions. The trial judge entered the summary final judgment against the appellant upon the authority of Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We agree with the trial judge. The applicable rule in those cases is that a defendant's knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee in order to create a duty on the part of the defendant to warn. In the instant case, the record shows that the knowledge of the appellant/invitee of the risk involved in using the water slide was at least equal to that of the appellee. Furthermore, the record indicates that the slide was designed to allow jumping the wall, and there was no evidence of a latent or hidden defect in the slide.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
...obvious condition, because Appellees' knowledge of the condition was not "superior" to Appellant's. Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc. , 453 So.2d 139, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding that "defendant's knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee ... to crea......
-
Emmons v. Baptist Hosp.
...Company v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We next turn to the first theory enumerated above regarding landowner duty to business invitees. The plainti......
-
City of Milton v. Broxson
...duty is that the defendant's knowledge of the danger must be superior to that of the business invitee. Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Emmons, supra. We agree with appellant that, although the appellant had knowledge of the danger to spectators......
-
Parker v. Shelmar Prop. Owner's Ass'n, Inc., Case No. 5D18-2105
...safety standard, resulting in an unreasonably dangerous condition.Second, the trial court relied on Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), in which the First District upheld summary judgment in a negligence case. Id. at 139. Hunt focused on the plain......