North Broward Hospital Dist. v. Adams, 2030
| Citation | 143 So.2d 355 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2030,2030 |
| Parties | NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic of the State of Florida, and the Board of Commissioners of said district, Appellants, v. Minnie M. ADAMS and Carmon L. Adams, her husband, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James J. Linus, of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Richard R. Kirsch, of Davis, Kirsch & Spellacy, and John M. McCants, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
The appellees, as plaintiffs, sued the appellants, as defendants, alleging injuries of the wife, suffered as a result of negligence of the defendants. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict in plaintiffs' favor.
The defendant is a special tax district, created by legislative act, operating a public hospital, and maintained in part by the levy of taxes. The plaintiff was entering the hospital for the purpose of visiting a friend, who was a patient at the hospital. While on the premises of the hospital and walking toward one of the entrances, upon a walkway or driveway made of black asphalt surface, and in the nighttime, she stepped into a hold in the surface of the driveway, fell and was injured.
It is first necessary to determine the legal status of the plaintiff while on the premises of the hospital in order to determine the duty owed by the hospital to her. Was the plaintiff an invitee or a licensee?
The general principles to be considered in determining the duty owed by the owner or occupant of the premises to various classes of persons have been considered by the courts of Florida, and these cases, as hereinafter analysed, are persuasive toward determination of the question as to the legal status of a person on the premises of a hospital for the purposes of visiting a patient. The specific question has not been heretofore decided in Florida.
In a suit involving a person attending a church, the court held, in effect, that a church is not a business and that the benefit to be derived from attending religious services is to the worshiper and that even in donating to the church's cause, the donor is receiving rather than giving and, therefore, a person upon the premises of a church is a licensee, which is broadly defined as a person who enters upon the property of another for his own convenience, pleasure, or benefit. The duty owed a licensee is to refrain from wanton negligence or wilful misconduct which would injure the licensee or to refrain from intentionally exposing the licensee to danger. There may be a further duty to the licensee to warn him of a defect or a condition known to the owner or occupant to be dangerous when such danger is not open to ordinary observation by the licensee. An invitee is normally considered to be one who enters upon the premises of another for purposes connected with the business of the owner or occupant of the premises. The owner or occupant owes an invitee the duty of keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to guard against subjecting the invitee to dangers known to the owner or occupant or which might reasonably have been foreseen by the owner or occupant. In determining the question, the general test is whether the injured person had, at the time of the injury, business relations with the owner of the premises which would render his presence on the premises of mutual aid to both, or whether his presence on the premises was for his own convenience, or on business with others than the owner of the premises. In the absence of a relationship which inures to the mutual benefit of the two, or to that of the owner, no invitation can be implied, and the injured person must be regarded as a mere licensee. McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 185.
A party guest of a tenant who tripped over a hole in the host's lawn, and a social caller on a lessee of an apartment have, in effect, been held to be licensees. Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; Tomei v. Center, Fla.App.1959, 116 So.2d 251.
The defendants contend that it was created and is maintained for the benefit of the citizens who reside in its district; that its sole purpose is to provide service; that it does not invite people to come into the hospital; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. P. L. Dodge Memorial Hospital
...is a visitor to the hospital and, as such, is an invitee. See: McNulty v. Hurley, 97 So.2d 185 (Fla.1957); North Broward Hospital District v. Adams, 143 So.2d 355 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So.2d 81 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); St. Vincent's Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch, 292 So.2d 405......
-
Maas Bros., Inc. v. Bishop, 7446
...House, Inc. v. Brown, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 249, 252; Messner v. Webb's City, Inc., Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 66, 67; North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Adams, Fla.App., 143 So.2d 355, 356, cert. denied mem., Fla.1962, 149 So.2d 47, 97 A.L.R.2d 819; Wallace v. Boca Raton Properties, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 ......
-
Bowins v. Euclid General Hosp. Ass'n
......v. EUCLID GENERAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION et al., Appellees. No. 47462. Court ... Accord North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Adams (Fla.App.1962), 143 ......
-
Wilson v. Baptist Mem'l Hospital—North Miss., Inc.
...are invitees. See Ex Parte Wooten, 681 So.2d 149, 150–151 (Ala.1996) (listing decisions of other states); N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Adams, 143 So.2d 355, 356–57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962) (noting only one exception, which has since been abandoned when Colorado abolished the common-law entrant c......