Middleton v. Lomaskin
| Decision Date | 19 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--27,72--27 |
| Citation | 266 So.2d 678 |
| Parties | James E. MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. Morris LOMASKIN and Markell Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen and Richard Yale Feder, Miami, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant and Daniel Draper, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a summary final judgment entered against him in an action for personal injuries which he alleged were suffered by him as a result of a fall on the premises of his landlords, the defendants.
Plaintiff was a tenant of an apartment under a written lease agreement entered into between him and the defendants. The lease contained the following provisions:
'TENANT'S WAIVER OF LIABILITY
'LANDLORD shall not be liable for, and TENANT hereby, for himself, his family, his invitees, licensees and permitees, releases, discharges and aquits LANDLORD (f)or any and all claims for loss, damage or injury of any nature whatsoever to person or property resulting in any way from or in any fashion arising from, connected with or resulting from occupancy and use of the demised premises and the property of which said premises are a part, whether caused by negligent acts of LANDLORD, its agents or servants or otherwise.'
This waiver of liability provision of the lease was pleaded in the answer and was the ground upon which the trial judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff argues for reversal on the grounds that the summary judgment was erroneously entered because the tenant's waiver of liability either did not, in fact, immunize the landlord from liability for the landlords' negligence or, if the provision did immunize the landlords, then it was void as unconstitutional as against the public policy of Florida.
These issues were urged by plaintiff in the trial court and they were correctly rejected.
Generally, exculpatory contracts which attempt to relieve a party of his own negligence are not looked upon with favor; however, such contracts have been held valid and enforceable in Florida, where such intention was made clear and unequivocal in such contract.
We think the exculpatory clause in the lease before u...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comptech Intern., Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd.
...633 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Etiole Int'l N.V. v. Miami Elevator Co., Inc., 573 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So.2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).Regardless of the validity of the indemnification clause, its relevance for purposes of our analysis is that it reflects......
-
In re Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
...is unconscionable ...”)); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Montagano, 359 So.2d 512 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) (citing Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So.2d 678 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972)) (stating that “[i]t is inescapable that Florida courts recognize and uphold, not only contracts with exculpatory clauses ......
-
Shaffer v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, a Subsidiary of Burns Intern. Sec. Services, a Subsidiary of Baker Industries, Inc.
... ... 4th DCA 1978), such clauses have been upheld where the intent to avoid liability is clear ... and unequivocal, Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So.2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). I agree with Shaffer that the exculpatory clause in this contract does not clearly and unequivocally ... ...
-
City of Miami v. Cisneros
...Stewart, 272 So.2d 507 (Fla.1973); L. Luria & Son, Inc. v. Alarmtec Int'l Corp., 384 So.2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So.2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). A number of cases have affirmed the validity of such contracts for use by those concerned with liability for the myria......