Mertz v. Krueger
| Decision Date | 11 March 1952 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | MERTZ v. KRUEGER et al. |
Baynard & Baynard, St. Petersburg, and A. Pickens Coles, Tampa, for appellant.
Forrest Hoffman, St. Petersburg, and Ralph Richards, Clearwater, for appellees.
The declaration in this case alleges that appellees, defendants below, were the owners of certain improved realty in Pinellas County, consisting of five cottages, facing the Gulf of Mexico, better known as Colonial Village. The elevation of Colonial Village was about ten feet above the beach and was supported by a protective wall or bulkhead extending along the beach line from one end of the property to the other. The beach line was considerable distance from the water. It is further alleged that on October 10, 1947, appellant, plaintiff below, was a guest in one of said cottages, that defendants carelessly and negligently permitted their premises to be left without a light, guard rail, fence or other warning along the bulkhead, that such condition was dangerous to human life, that plaintiff without knowledge or notice thereof was proceeding to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and walked over the bulkhead and fell to the rocks below, a distance of about ten feet. As a result of said fall it is alleged that plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured, that she sustained a fracture of the neck of the left femur, causing a physical deformity, the shortening of her left leg and curvature of the spine. It was further alleged that plaintiff suffered great physical and mental pain and was confined to the hospital for 56 days, by reason of which she is severely handicapped in the performance of her vocation.
A demurrer to the declaration and motion for compulsory amendment were overruled. The declaration was amended and there were other preliminary pleadings but the case went to trial on pleas of the general issue, contributory negligence, nonjoinder of parties defendant and that plaintiff was not an invited guest. At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony the court directed a verdict for defendants, wherein he found that they were free from negligence and that 'there was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff herself was guilty of contributory negligence.' A motion for new trial was denied and the plaintiff appealed.
Six questions are urged for determination, all of which challenge the correctness of the order of the trial court directing a verdict for defendants. Since this is the case, the ultimate point with which we are concerned is whether or not the evidence affecting the issues raised by the pleas to the declaration was sufficient to go to the jury.
The evidence discloses that two friends of appellant engaged the cottage in question for the week-end of October 10, 1947, consideration of $14, that defendants were advised and consented to plaintiff using the cottage as guest of her friends. Plaintiff and friends went to Colonial Village late Friday afternoon and took charge of the cottage. They placed their luggage and groceries in the place appointed and prepared to go swimming. The plaintiff had never been to Colonial Village before and was not warned of the dangerous condition (bulkhead) in front of the cottage. The plaintiff proved these facts including every other material allegation of her declaration, viz.:--that defendants were the owners of Colonial Village, that it consisted of five rental cottages, that plaintiff was an invitee of defendants, that defendants permitted their premises to be left without a guard rail, fence or other warning to put one on notice of the bulkhead and the drop over it, that it was a short distance on level sand from the cottage to the bulkhead, that without knowledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Goode
...condition commensurate with the business conducted. Therefore this case involves facts and a rule of law much like those in Mertz v. Krueger, 58 So.2d 160 (Fla.1952) where a guest at a vacation resort fell to the beach from an unguarded bulkhead. In holding that the question of negligence o......
-
Sergermeister v. Recreation Corp. of America, Inc.
...exercised ordinary or reasonable care is a jury question to be considered by it in light of the circumstances prevailing. Mertz v. Krueger, 58 So.2d 160 (Fla.1952). It is notable that the cases relied upon by plaintiff dealt with the appellate review of trial court decisions determining lia......
-
Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota
...Club, 1948, 160 Fla. 502, 35 So.2d 720; Rainbow Enterprises v. Thompson, Fla., 1955, 81 So.2d 208, 55 A.L.R.2d 861; and Mertz v. Krueger, Fla., 1952, 58 So.2d 160. We do not agree that defendant's enterprise was a 'place of amusement', as we ordinarily understand the term, nor that the stan......
-
Brant v. Van Zandt
...circumstances whether that person used due care. Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., supra; Goldin v. Lipkind, supra. See also Mertz v. Krueger, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 160. But where a person has knowledge or notice of a particular physical impediment causing injury, he cannot be said to have a righ......