Norman v. Shulman
| Decision Date | 24 March 1942 |
| Citation | 7 So.2d 98,150 Fla. 142 |
| Parties | NORMAN v. SHULMAN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1942.
Blackwell & Walker, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Sam P Greenberg, of Miami, for defendant in error.
The declaration charged that the defendant was negligent in failing properly to illuminate the steps to the entrance of an apartment building which she owned and operated and that as a consequence the plaintiff, invitee and visitor there, was injured when she attempted to leave the building in the nighttime. It was also alleged that the defendant, in the maintenance and operation of the property, violated the provisions of Section 3361, C.G.L.1927, and thus the plaintiff claimed responsibility on the part of the defendant for her negligence independent of statute and also because of her neglect to comply with the law.
Issue was formed by pleas of not guilty and contributory negligence and by special traverse.
The plaintiff entered the building after nightfall and at the time two lights were burning at the entrance. After paying a visit of two hours duration she left with a companion and passed through a darkened lobby and hallway to the threshold which was also unlighted. In order to reach the street it was necessary to negotiate three steps which she attempted to do in the dark. She misjudged the width of the second one and fell, sustaining painful injuries.
No defect in the outside stairway has been established and the injury seems to have been entirely occasioned by failure of the plaintiff accurately to gauge the distance of her final step to the walk. It is her position that this miscalculation was attributable to the lack of any light and that the owner of the apartment house should compensate her for her misfortune.
Our review of the authorities convinces us that there was no duty on the part of the defendant to have the entrance of the building lighted at the time the plaintiff was injured unless it was imposed upon her by the statute to which we will subsequently refer. In 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, page 576, appears a statement of the rule regarding the duty of a landlord to light the premises: 'The common-law liability of a landlord for the safe condition of approaches to, and the stairs and hallways in, premises used in common by different tenants, does not ordinarily require him to keep the ordinary halls and stairways lighted, and hence he is not ordinarily liable for injuries received by reason of the unlighted condition of this portion of the premises.' Among decisions to support the announcement are: Gallagher v. Murphy, 221 Mass. 363, 108 N.E. 1081, Ann.Cas.1917E, 594; McGowan v. Monahan, 199 Mass. 296, 85 N.E. 105, 17 L.R.A.,N.S 928, 127 Am.St.Rep. 501. These same cases are given as authority for similar expressions of the principle appearing in 24 C.J. page 214.
The statute which defendant in error insists fixed responsibility on the part of defendant to keep the entrance lighted provides that 'Every * * * apartment house * * * shall be properly plumbed, lighted, heated and ventilated, and shall be conducted in every department with strict regard to health comfort and safety of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agosta v. Granite City Real Estate Co., 1783
...or that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege that fact, see Rietzel v. Cary, 66 R.I. 418, 19 A.2d 760, 762; Norman v. Shulman, 150 Fla. 142, 7 So.2d 98; Knight v. Fourth Buckingham Community, 179 Va. 13, 18 S.E.2d 264, 266; Bishop v. Scharbauer, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 351, Our Prac......
-
Brant v. Van Zandt
...of such cases as Breau v. Whitmore, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 748; Westerbeke v. Reynolds, 1944, 155 Fla. 2, 19 So.2d 413; and Norman v. Shulman, 1942, 150 Fla. 142, 7 So.2d 98. The plaintiff contends that the judgment should be affirmed upon the authority of Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., Fla.195......
-
Ortner v. Linch, 60-23
...97 A.L.R. 220, 224, 234 (1935). See also Taneian v. Meghrigian, 15 N.J. 267, 104 A.2d 689.4 The earlier cases of Norman v. Shulman, 150 Fla. 142, 7 So.2d 98, and Westerbeke v. Reynolds, 155 Fla. 2, 19 So.2d 413, which involved claims of guests of apartment house tenants for alleged failure ......
-
Feigen v. Sokolsky
...question should or should not be submitted to a jury in a number of cases. We had a similar situation in the case of Norman v. Shulman, 150 Fla. 142, 7 So.2d 98, 99. In an opinion by Mr. Justice Thomas, the Court 'The principal obstacle to recovery on the part of the plaintiff, however, see......