Ladenson v. Eder

• Decision Date: 15 February 1967
• Citation: 195 So.2d 211
• Parties: Elizabeth C. LADENSON, Petitioner, v. Karl EDER and Elsa Eder, Respondents. no. 35567.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 211

195 So.2d 211

Elizabeth C. LADENSON, Petitioner, v. Karl EDER and Elsa Eder, Respondents.

no. 35567.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 15, 1967.

Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson, Spence & Hicks, and Robert Orseck, Miami, for petitioner.

Sherouse & Corlett and Sam Daniels, Miami, for respondents.

ERVIN, Justice.

This is a certiorari review of the case of Ladenson v. Eder (Fla.App.1966), 186 So.2d 835.

Petitioner, Mrs. Elizabeth C. Ladenson, A social guest (a licensee) in the home of Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Karl Eder, slipped upon a terrazzo floor while walking from one room to another in the home, breaking her hip.

Petitioner joined by her husband, as plaintiffs, brought suit in the Circuit Court, charging negligence. The defendants, the Respondents here, moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and entered judgment for defendants as a matter of law. On appeal the District Court affirmed in said decision reported in 186 So.2d 835.

In affirming, the District Court commented:

'The record essentially reveals that Mrs. Ladenson slipped and fell upon a terrazzo floor in an area previously travelled by her without incident. The floor in question had received an application of a sealer compound some days previously. The floor was slippery. Plaintiffs charge within the context of Goldberg v. Straus, supra, that this slippery floor under these circumstances constituted an exception to the rule that a guest must take the premises as he finds them. They say it was an artificial dangerous condition of which the defendants had actual knowledge, plus the realization that it involved an unreasonable risk to Mrs. Ladenson, and that the defendants had reason to believe that Mrs. Ladenson would not discover this dangerous condition or realize the risk involved by the exercise of reasonable care. They contend that the defendants had a clear duty to warn Mrs. Ladenson of the condition and the risk involved.

'(3) It is a matter of common knowledge that terrazzo floors are in popular use in south Florida and that same are treated with sealers and waxes as a matter of maintenance. The properties of such floors are well known.

'(4) Indulging every fact and inference favorable to plaintiffs, we simply feel that the proofs presented do not constitute a violation of the legal duty owed to Mrs. Ladenson, a licensee. See Freeman v. Hallevue, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 859.' (at 836--837)

The Petitioner contends this affirmance conflicts with the following cases:

Goldberg v. Straus (Fla.), 45 So.2d 883, and Fritts v. Collins (Fla.App.2nd), 144 So.2d 850.

In Goldberg v. Straus, supra, it is said:

'(1, 2) By the great weight of authority, where one is invited to come upon the premises of another as a guest for social purposes, the relation created between the parties is, in a legal sense, one of licensor and licensee and not one of invitor and invitee. Harper on Torts, 3rd Ed. Sec. 98. In such circumstances the rule is that the guest must take the premises as he finds them; subject to the exception, however, that the host will be held for liability for injuries caused to his guest by a natural or artificial condition on the premises, where the host has Actual knowledge of the condition and realizes that it involves an unreasonable risk to his guest and has reason to believe that the guest will not discover the condition or realize the risk, by the exercise of reasonable care, yet despite such circumstances, permits the guest to enter or remain on the premises, without exercising reasonable care to make the condition reasonably safe, or to warn the guest of the condition and the risk involved therein. * * *' (45 So.2d at 885)

We find conflict and quash the judgment of the District Court of Appeal.

A careful analysis of the foregoing quoted portion of the opinion of the District Court reveals there is decisional conflict with Goldberg v. Straus.

From the District Court's opinion it appears the plaintiffs relied on the following affirmative circumstances to bring their case within the exception stated in Goldberg v. Straus: the floor was slippery because it had received an application of sealer compound previously; that this was an artificial dangerous condition of which the defendants had actual knowledge, plus realization that it involved an unreasonable risk to Mrs. Ladenson; and defendants had reason to believe Mrs. Ladenson would not discover the dangerous condition or realize the risk by the exercise of reasonable care. Plaintiffs contend defendants had a clear duty to warn Mrs. Ladenson of the condition and the risk involved.

The District Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment against the plaintiffs because it found no...