Kessler v. Gumenick
| Decision Date | 23 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-285,77-285 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 1167 |
| Parties | Sidney KESSLER, Appellant, v. Nathan S. GUMENICK, Harry Grandis and Jerome Gumenick, a partnership, d/b/a Southgate Towers Hotel and Apartments, and Home Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Herman Grayson, Miami Beach and Frank M. Brezina, Miami, for appellant.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Hawkesworth, Schmick, Ponzoli & Wassenberg, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant/plaintiff appeals from an "order granting motion for summary judgment" in favor of appellees/defendants in a negligence action that can be categorized as a "slip and fall."
Appellant contends that there were genuine issues of material fact left unresolved by the trial judgment thus precluding the entrance of a summary judgment. We disagree with appellant's contention; however, before discussing the merits, we note that from a procedural standpoint, the order appealed is but an order granting a motion and is not appealable as such. Accordingly, as urged by counsel for appellees, this appeal should be, and is hereby dismissed. Shupack v. Allstate Insurance Company, 356 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Florida Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Self-Insurers Fund v. Citizens National Bank of Orlando, 223 So.2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Harris v. Mosteller, 253 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); and Washington Security Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
For the sake of argument, a properly entered final summary judgment would have nevertheless been affirmed. While appellant did present an issue of fact as to whether or not there existed water on the floor directly in front of the apartment house elevator (apparently tracked into the building via bathers returning from the apartment's swimming pool) thereby causing a hazardous condition, the record is completely devoid of any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, addressed to the issue of whether or not appellees had either actual or constructive knowledge of the danger prior to the time of appellant's slip and fall and thus, could have with reasonable diligence, remedied the situation. In that no proof was offered with respect to the knowledge of appellees, it is our opinion that, sub judice, appellant failed to present a prima facie case of negligence. Padilla v. Tulso Enterprises, Inc., 307 So.2d 884 (Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alegre v. Shurkey
...of the order below, and the opinions following Hoffman and Blackburn which persevere in applying no-duty, e. g., Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), all ......
-
Donnell v. Industrial Fire and Cas. Co.
...for a claim of res judicata. Edwards v. Kings Point Housing Corp., 351 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see, e. g., Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Shupack v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Guth v. Howard, 362 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); First......
-
Deal Farms, Inc. v. Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc., OO-207
...a summary judgment, not a final judgment, nor an order from which interlocutory appeal would properly lie. See also Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We therefore conclude that we have jurisdiction of Deal Farms' REVER......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 89-1278
...and would adopt that analysis. The decisions in Logozzo v. Kent Insurance Co., 464 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), relied on by the majority, do not address the specific issue under review In the present case, unlike Travelers Insura......