Luckey v. City of Orlando, 71--645
| Decision Date | 30 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--645,71--645 |
| Citation | 264 So.2d 99 |
| Parties | Robert LUCKEY and Pearl Luckey, Appellants, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, a municipal corporation, existing under the laws of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Byrne, Jr., of Miller & Byrne, Orlando, for appellants.
Monroe E. McDonald of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & McDonald, Orlando, for appellees.
Trip and fall case. Summary final judgment for defendants. We reverse. There are genuine material issues.
Mrs. Luckey, a plaintiff, was a business invitee. She tripped and fell upon entering the doorway of Jet News Stand, a business concession located inside the McCoy Jet Port in Orlando. The usual issues of negligence and contributory negligence were framed in the pleadings and, as stated, the trial court disposed of them via summary judgment in favor of defendants.
As reflected in the photographs, the front of the stand consists of glass with merchandise on display and racks of merchandise of various kinds visible in the interior. The entrance-way doors were of the sliding glass variety, which opened and shut along the course of a narrow metal track fastened to the top of the floor. The track extended across the whole width of the doorway floor. It was elevated a heighth of 3/4 inch more or less over the balance of the floor space. The doors were opened at the time of the accident, thereby exposing the raised track.
Mrs. Luckey, age 62, spotted an item while outside the stand and, upon entering to purchase it, she tripped upon the raised metal track, fell and was injured.
How about defendant's negligence? The jury would be fully authorized in finding that the maintenance of the mentioned raised metal track across the width of the doorway in the way of each customer's traverse into and out of the business premises constituted negligence.
The jury could well have determined, for instance, that defendant's failure to warn or post warning signs was negligent; that the maintenance of the doors and track of this design as opposed to others with no such impediment was negligent. It could have found that the track should have been recessed to floor level or removed when the doors were open; or, that the floor should have been painted in attention-getting colors in order to direct attention to the danger. Mrs. Luckey, as an invitee, could and should expect the premises she entered to be made reasonably safe for her. She is owed this duty by the storekeeper. Lunney v. Post, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 504; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Miller, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 680; Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 780; Schatz v. 7--Eleven, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 901.
How about Mrs. Luckey's contributory negligence? The jury could have found that she had a right not to expect an obstruction of this kind in the middle of the doorway to a business open to the public and, hence, without the existence of a warning sign she was under no duty to scrutinize the doorway floor upon entering. One is not required to guard against danger in places where it is not expected to be. Matthews v. Lawnlite Company, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 299.
Further, under the facts of this case the distraction theory could have been applicable and excused her failure to see the doorway track, because of her view being fixed on the merchandise offered for sale. Deane v. Johnston, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 3; Maximo Moorings Marine Center, Inc. v. Walke, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 215. Finally, contributory negligence in such cases has been traditionally held to be for jury evaluation. Lescrynski v. Middlebrook, Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 215; Suhr v. Dade County, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 837; Koven v. Owens, Fla.App.1964, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
...owed a duty to Mrs. Bryant, as a business invitee, to maintain its premises in a reasonable and safe manner. See Luckey v. City of Orlando, 264 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (plaintiff tripped over a door track which extended over the width of the door); Phillips v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co......
-
Perl v. K-Mart Corp., K-MART
...570 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Phillips v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 373 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Luckey v. City of Orlando, 264 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The employee did not act when confronted with a hanger directly in the customer's path; K-Mart thus breached the dut......
-
Byrnes v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
...District Court of Appeal opinion filed December 20, 1972; Jenkins v. Brackin, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 589. See also Luckey v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 99. As was pointed out in Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., supra, 133 So.2d at p. 'Negligence cases are extremely tro......
-
Phillips v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 78-2691
...40 (Fla.1966). The cases are legion to say summary judgments should be granted rarely. Especially on point here is Luckey v. City of Orlando, 264 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) where a lady was walking across a metal strip leading into a business establishment and tripped and fell injuring he......