Murray v. Osenton, 1849
| Decision Date | 01 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 1849,1849 |
| Citation | 126 So.2d 603 |
| Parties | John R. MURRAY, Appellant, v. J. B. OSENTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gilman & McDonnell, Winter Park, for appellant.
Sanders, McEwan, Schwarz & Mims, Orlando, for appellee.
Motion to dismiss the amended complaint of the plaintiff, Murray, was granted by the trial judge in the cause below; and since the plaintiff declined to plead further, judgment consequently was entered in favor of the defendant, Osenton. The appeal is from that judgment.
We are here considering whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action sufficient to have precluded dismissal of the cause. In substance, it was alleged that the defendant operated a gasoline service station at Orange Blossom Trail and Long Street in Orlando, Florida, at which the plaintiff was employed by him as an attendant; that there occurred upon a certain night an attempted robbery of the service station, during the course of which the plaintiff was assaulted, shot, and wounded. It was further alleged that, although the defendant had actual knowledge at that time of the unusual danger and likelihood of robberies and burglaries peculiar to service stations in Orlando, he negligently and carelessly instructed the plaintiff to take a gun belonging to the defendant and to remain alone at night at the service station but failed to take reasonable measures to protect plaintiff.
Urging that allegations of foreseeability of a known danger were sufficiently presented, plaintiff says that negligence was thereby sufficiently pleaded for the amended complaint to have withstood the motion to dismiss.
Forms of action and technical forms for seeking relief have been abolished. A pleading setting forth a claim for relief must state a cause of action. The pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts on which the pleader relies, and if it informs the defendant of the nature of the cause against him, this shall be sufficient. Section 1.8(a, b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.
In a case of this kind, in order for liability to attach to an employer for an injury or death of his employee due to the acts of a burglar, thief, or robber, the injury or death must be the proximate result of negligence chargeable to the employer. It is basic that a master must provide his employees with a reasonably safe place in which to work. However, the danger of injury to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
...of its position Helms v. Harris, 281 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Civ.App.1955), where a patron of a market was shot during a holdup; Murray v. Osenton, 126 So.2d 603 (Fla.App.1961), a suit brought by a service station attendant for injuries sustained during an armed robbery; Genovay v. Fox, 29 N.J. 436......
-
Cornpropst v. Sloan
...upon which liability of shopkeepers in a shopping center for the criminal acts of third parties will be predicated. In Murray v. Osenton, 126 So.2d 603 (Fla.1961), an employee of a service station operator sued his employer for personal injuries sustained as a result of being shot during a ......
-
Colton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 2350
...of ordinary senses. It is the duty of an employer to provide his employees with a reasonably safe place in which to work. Murray v. Osenton, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 603. It is also the rule, however, that an employer is not required to warrant an employee absolute safety under every conditi......
- Vineberg v. Dixie Style, Inc., 60-286
-
Premises liability.
...purely a question of law in the first instance. Echoes of Palsgraff are heard in the cryptic, but correct reasoning of Murray v. Osenton, 126 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), short on discussion but long on logic. This is a never-cited case dismissing, correctly, a premises case on the pleadi......