Mosqueda v. Paramount Enterprises, Inc., 58-401
| Decision Date | 14 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-401,58-401 |
| Parties | Cecille MOSQUEDA, Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Norman H. Goldstein, Miami Beach, and Phillip Goldman, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and John B. Kelley, Miami, for appellee.
The appellant, plaintiff below, while a paying patron at one of appellee's theaters, suffered personal injuries when a chair, located in the ladies' lounge of the theater, collapsed when she sat upon it.
At the trial of this cause, and upon conclusion of the appellant's evidence as to liability, the trial judge, upon appellee's motion, directed a verdict for the appellee. Final judgment was entered upon the verdict as directed and this appeal followed.
The evidence developed at the trial shows that the appellant and a friend entered the theater around 8:00 or 9:00 p. m., to view the showing of a current movie. Approximately 10:00 p. m., the appellant and her friend, while on their way out of the theater, stopped in the ladies' lounge. After entering the lounge, the appellant sat down upon a chair furnished by appellee for its patrons, whereupon the chair collapsed, throwing the appellant to the floor and injuring her. The appellant's companion, who was the only eyewitness to the accident, testified by deposition that the chair collapsed 'immediately' after the appellant has seated herself. The appellant was described as being five feet two inches tall and weighing 115 to 120 pounds. Both saw the chair before appellant sat on it but neither noticed anything unusual about it.
The appellant called as witnesses the engineer, manager, and assistant manager of the theater where the accident occurred. Their testimony covered a short period of time after the accident, including an examination of the chair that collapsed. They knew of nothing wrong with the chair or why it collapsed. It is clear from all the evidence that there existed a latent defect in the chair which would not be apparent from ordinary observation. The evidence further disclosed that the chairs in the ladies' lounge had been inspected at about 10:00 a. m. on the day of the accident, and that the theater opened at approximately 10:45 a. m., and remained open until 1:00 or 1:30 a. m. of the following day.
The appellant contends that her case should have been submitted to a jury and that she should have been given the benefit of the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The appellee contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply under the circumstances disclosed by the facts in this case. We agree with the appellee's contention that the doctrine does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sergermeister v. Recreation Corp. of America, Inc.
...of private premises are held for injuries to persons coming on their premises. Mosqueda v. Paramount Enterprises, Inc. (1959) Fla.App.) 111 So.2d 63, Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 1948, 160 Fla. 502, 35 So.2d 720, Reinbow (sic) Enterprises v. Thompson, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d It is our opinio......
-
Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota
...of business', citing Turlington v. Tampa Electric Company, 1911, 62 Fla. 398, 56 So. 696, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 72; Mosqueda v. Paramount Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App., 1959, 111 So.2d 63; Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 1948, 160 Fla. 502, 35 So.2d 720; Rainbow Enterprises v. Thompson, Fla., 1955......
-
Biltmore Terrace Associates v. Kegan, 60-391
...612. Third, more care is required of operators of places of amusement than is required of ordinary businesses. Mosqueda v. Paramount Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 63. Fourth, the requirement of care is greater when a duty is owed to infants. Burdine's Inc. v. McConnell, 146 Fla......
-
Barnes v. Gulf Power Co.
...in the above illustration, a special relationship existed between A Theatre Company and C, its patron. See Mosqueda v. Paramount Enterprises, Inc., 111 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 115 So.2d 415 (Fla.1959) (a higher degree of diligence is imposed on the proprietor of a place of amu......