Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1941 |
| Parties | MOULDEN v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 27, 1941.
G. P. Garrett and W. K. Whitfield, Jr., both of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
Giles & Gurney, of Orlando, for defendant in error.
From final judgment adverse to plaintiff we consider the sufficiency of the declaration to state a cause of action. The plaintiff, an invitee, charges the defendant 'did not then and there furnish the plaintiff with a safe floor on and over which to pass * * *'. The declaration is defective.
This case was before this court once before, where it was said (Nettie Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company, 143 Fla. 344, 196 So. 688, 689):
'If the owner of the building had been the insurer of the safety of the plaintiff as an invitee on its premises, there might be substance to this contention * * *.'
The law is well settled that the owner of a building is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees. The duty owed to plaintiff by defendant was the exercise of a reasonable degree of care commensurate with the attending circumstances for the plaintiff's safety. Southern Express Company v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L.R.A.1916C, 1208; Christopher Company v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, 58 So. 45, Ann.Cas.1913C, 564; Turlington v. Tampa Electric Company, 62 Fla. 398, 56 So. 696, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 72, Ann.Cas.1913D, 1213.
To charge the defendant with actionable negligence it must be shown that the defendant failed and neglected to fulfill that duty. To charge the defendant with failure to furnish a safe floor is to require a higher degree of care than the law recognizes. Such requirement would make the defendant an insurer.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Miami v. Wylie
...v. Norton Tire Co., 150 Fla. 349, 7 So.2d 456; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366; Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 147 Fla. 36, 2 So.2d 302. They also lay down the proposition that in treating the floors of such a building the owner may apply wax or oil or......
-
Goldman v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Company
...shown. We are of the same opinion. The owner of premises is not the insurer of the safety of an invitee. Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., 147 Fla. 36, 2 So. 2d 302; Sagesser v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Cir., 1956, 230 F.2d 806. Goldman was a paying guest of the hotel company......
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte
...v. Green, 71 So.2d 500, 503 (Fla.1954); Clyde Bar, Inc. v. McClamma, 152 Fla. 118, 10 So.2d 916 (1942); Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 147 Fla. 36, 2 So.2d 302 (1941); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).2 See, Springer v. Morris, 74 So.2d 781, 785 (Fla.1954); Hall......
-
Sagesser v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
...33. Because of error in sustaining the defendant's motion to dismiss the judgment is Reversed and remanded. 1 Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 147 Fla. 36, 2 So.2d 302. 2 Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co., Fla., 61 So.2d 3 Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366.......