Ramadan v. Crowell
| Decision Date | 09 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 7084,7084 |
| Parties | Hassan RAMADAN, and Phillipa E. Ramadan, d/b/a Sunshine Park and Recreation Center, Appellants, v. Linda CROWELL, a minor, By and Through her mother and next friend, Alna Paxton, and Alna Paxton Individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George C. Dayton, Dade City, for appellants.
David A. Davis, Bushnell, for appellees.
This is an appeal by defendants below from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs pursuant to a jury verdict.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover damages for injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendants in the maintenance of their recreational facilities which they conducted as a business for profit. Specifically, the facts are these: the minor plaintiff, a 12 year old girl, along with other children, was on the defendants' premises to use the swimming pool. She, together with another child, aged 6, became locked in the ladies' dressing and shower room as a result of the door sticking when she attempted to open it to leave the room. She testified that she pushed the door after it stuck. Other unrebutted testimony established that the door opened inside so that it had to be pulled rather than pushed in order to open. In an attempt to look out from a window to call for help, she stood upon a bench and tried to pull herself up on a concrete block partition wall separating the shower from the rest of the room. At least one block from said partition fell and struck her foot resulting in injury to her.
During the trial proceedings, the trial Judge read to the jury a factual stipulation agreed to by both counsel. The statement contained no recitation of the failure of the door to open but did contain the following concluding paragraphs:
'Now, the plaintiff contends that the were negligent in the construction of the shower partition wall, that the said shower partition wall was dangerous and unsafe, and such condition was known or should have been known by the defendants, and that such condition was not known to or observable by the plaintiff.
'The defendants deny that they have been negligent in the construction of said shower partition wall, and set up the affirmative defense that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to climb the shower partition wall.'
Defendants moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case on the ground of failure to prove any actionable negligence on defendants' part, also that it affirmatively appeared that the minor plaintiff was using the facility for a purpose or use for which it was not intended and was guilty of contributory negligence. The motion was denied, as were defendants' post-trial motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial. These denials are among the errors assigned.
The question to be decided here is whether an owner of public bathing facilities is liable for injuries to a 12 year old girl patron received while she was climbing or attempting to climb a shower partition wall (a use for which it was not intended) in the ladies' dressing room of the owner's establishment where no negligence in construction or maintenance of the wall is shown, and where the climbing of the wall was in a panicky attempt to escape under a mistaken belief that an entrance door was blocked.
This question must be answered in the negative as a matter of law and therefore reversed for the reasons hereinafter stated.
The rule with regard to the duty owed by a swimming pool owner, operating it as a public amusement for profit, to its business invitee is set out in Biltmore Terrace Associates v. Kegan, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 631, 633, cert. discharged Fla.1963, 154 So.2d 825:
"The owner or proprietor of a bathing or swimming resort or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panoz v. Gulf & Bay Corp. of Sarasota
...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 ......
-
Savignac v. Dept. of Transp., 80-1561.
..."in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes to which they are adapted and apparently designed to be used." Ramaden v. Crowell, 192 So.2d 525, 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Second, as appellee also points out, a property owner generally cannot be held liable for dangerous conditions which exi......
-
General Tel. Co. of Florida v. Choate
...tried to pull herself up a concrete block wall which caused a portion of the wall to fall and strike her foot. Ramadan v. Crowell, 192 So.2d 525 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). Reversing a jury verdict for the plaintiff, this court noted there was no finding that the wall had been negligently maintained......
-
City of Miami v. Swift
...440 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Barnett First National Bank of Cocoa v. Shelton, 253 So.2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Ramadan v. Crowell, 192 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Second, a firearm contained in a console compartment of an automobile on which the lid is closed does not constitute th......