Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota

• Citation: 208 So.2d 297
• Decision Date: 15 March 1968
• Docket Number: No. 67--374,67--374
• Parties: Eugene J. PANOZ, Appellant, v. GULF AND BAY CORPORATION OF SARASOTA, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 297

208 So.2d 297

Eugene J. PANOZ, Appellant, v. GULF AND BAY CORPORATION OF SARASOTA, Appellee.

No. 67--374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1968.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1968.

Charles J. Cheves, Jr., of Icard, Merrill, Cullis & Timm, Sarasota, for appellant.

David S. Yost, of Paderewski, Cramer, Robinson, Ginsburg & Ross, Sarasota, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is an appeal by Eugene J. Panoz, plaintiff below, from a judgment non obstante veredicto entered upon motion of Gulf and Bay Corporation of Sarasota, defendant below, after trial and verdict for plaintiff in a case involving alleged negligence of defendant in the operation of its golf course.

The basic facts of the case as derived from the pleadings and evidence at trial were substantially as follows: that defendant owned and operated a public 'par three' golf course on Siesta Key in Sarasota County, which course Panoz had 'played' some eight or nine times prior to March 19, 1964; that wooden benches for the convenience of the passing players had been placed on the various tees and it was well known that such benches were, from time to time, moved around on or near the tees by golfers; that on March 19, 1964, plaintiff was playing the course with a young teen-agernamed Spencer and as they approached the sixth tee they had to wait a couple of minutes for preceding golfers to clear the sixth fairway and green, so plaintiff sat down on the bench so provided and presently toppled over to the rear, causing his head and back to strike the ground; that the bench was about eight feet long, twenty inches high, the seating portion eleven and one half inches wide, with three legs about nine inches wide with inverted V's cut at the bottom, i.e., the usual type benches in public places. Panoz and Spencer are not in exact agreement as to how long Panoz had been sitting on the bench before he fell over, or as to whether the bench was sitting all on the tee terrain or all on a slight slope off the tee or partly on both, but such is immaterial to our determination.

Plaintiff's suit to recover for injuries received in falling contends negligence on the part of defendant because of (1) 'poor design' of the bench, (2) allowing 'placement' of the bench on an uneven turf thereby creating a 'dangerous condition', and (3) failing to warn plaintiff of such condition which 'should have been known' to defendant. Defendant by answer denied any negligence, and upon trial the jury returned verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded $6,000 damages. Ruling on a motion by defendant for directed verdict during the trial had been deferred, and after verdict defendant filed motion for judgment n.o.v., which was granted by the Court, and judgment was thereupon entered for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed and assigns as error the setting aside of the verdict and entering the final judgment for defendant. We affirm.

We are cognizant of the rule that 'a stronger showing is required to reverse an order granting a new trial than one denying it', and we have so held in several cases which presuppose an area of factual conflict. Brown v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., Fla.App., 1967, 196 So.2d 465; Grant v. Williams, Fla.App., 1966, 190 So.2d 23, and Florida Power Corporation v. Smith (and Fleming), Fla.App., 1967, 202 So.2d 872. But especially is the rule applicable in a case where the Court goes beyond ordering a new trial and proceeds directly to final judgment, in which event the action of the Court is likened to granting a motion for directed verdict for defendant at the conclusion of testimony at trial. And in such cases we have held that judgments n.o.v. cannot be entered 'unless the evidence as a whole with all reasonable deductions to be drawn therefrom, points to but one possible conclusion'. Barr v. Mizrahi, Fla.App., 1960, 124 So.2d 508; Aucompaugh v. City of Punta Gorda, Fla.App., 1966, 181 So.2d 713.

However, under the facts developed at the trial here, we think the trial Judge would have been warranted in directing a verdict against the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court was within its right, having deferred ruling upon such motion, in setting aside the verdict after trial and entering judgment n.o.v. Ramadan v. Crowell, Fla.App., 1966, 192 So.2d 525; Morgan v. Collier County Motors, Inc., Fla.App., 1966, 193 So.2d 35. The party so moving shoulders a heavy burden because he necessarily 'admits all material facts as attested by his adversary and also admits all inferences of fact favorable to the adversary that reasonably might be drawn from the evidence as a whole'. Cash v. Gates, Fla.App., 1963, 151 So.2d 838; Love v. Adams, Fla.App., 1967, 194 So.2d 55.

Applying the foregoing principles to the case sub judice, and admitting we would so hold only in a clear case, we are constrained to the view that plaintiff's 'side of the case is essentially devoid of probative evidence'. Love v. Adams, supra; Ely v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., Fla.App., 1962, 138 So.2d 521.

At the outset, it is essential that we determine and fix the degree of care imposed by law upon defendant as the owner and operator of a public golf course in maintaining its playing premises so as to reasonably protect its invitee patrons from injury. Plaintiff, while conceding that defendant was 'not the insurer of plaintiff's safety' urges that nevertheless defendant is the owner and operator 'of a place of amusement' and was therefore charged with a higher degree of diligence than required of 'stores, banks, and other places 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, 81 So.2d 208, 55 A.L.R.2d 861; and Mertz v. Krueger, Fla., 1952, 58 So.2d 160.

We do not agree that defendant's enterprise was a 'place of amusement', as we ordinarily understand the term, nor that the standard of care involved in the operation of the instant golf course should be necessarily governed by or aligned with that laid down in the cited cases.

In Turlington, decided in 1911, a patron was maimed and subsequently died from injuries resulting from diving off a springboard into shallow waters at the old Ballast Point Pavilion and bathhouse then operated by Tampa Electric Company at the end of a street railroad line, where there was no sign warning the public of the danger of shallow water at that particular spot.

In Mosqueda the patron suffered personal injuries at an indoor theatre, when a chair, located in the ladies' lounge of the theatre, collapsed when she sat upon it.

In Wells the patron suffered severe injuries when she fell to the floor after stepping on an empty bottle in the aisle of the grandstand at a dog track.

In Rainbow Enterprises a patron suffered injuries when she tripped and fell down a third flight of stairs leading from the restaurant building to the boathouse at Rainbow Gardens near Dunnellon, the fall occurring 'when the heel of her shoe caught in a depression variously described as a 'hole', a 'crevice', or a 'concave surface' about six inches long and about one inch deep at the center'.

In Mertz a patron was injured when she fell a distance of about ten feet to the rocks below, from a bulkhead extending along the beach line of a gulf front beach cottage project where there was no light, guard rail, fence, or other warning along the bulkhead.

In those cases, the injuries occurred in an obviously dangerous place where a large number of paying patrons were congregated in a relatively limited area. In such instance, the danger was either patent, in which case the operator was under a duty to remove or overcome the obvious danger, or it was latent, in which case the operator was under a duty, if it could not be reasonably eliminated, to at least advise or suitably warn the invitee public of the unseen danger.

Here, we have a materially different situation. A modern golf course is not a compact building or complex of buildings or structures, as we currently understand the term. Rather than being a 'place of amusement', as traditionally categorized by the Courts, it covers a vast expanse of land with a minimum of structural facilities. The purposeful objective is not primarily 'entertainment' but rather recreation, relaxation and exercise,...