Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell
| Decision Date | 24 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. X--179,X--179 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 298 |
| Parties | ROMAN SPA, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant (Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff), v. Marion LUBELL, Appellee (Plaintiff), and Connors Construction Co., Appellee (Third-Party Defendant). |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marion R. Shepard, of Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellant.
David R. Lewis, of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Isaac, William M. Howell, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto & Dean, and Carle A. Felton, Jr., and Noah H. Jenerette, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Roman Spa appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Lubell following a jury trial in a negligence case, and it appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Connors Construction Company following a jury trial in an indemnification action.
The issue which is dispositive of both appeals is whether the trial court erred in denying Spa's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all of the evidence in the trial of the Lubell case.
In August of 1972, Lubell was a patron of Spa, enjoying the steam room, when a portion of the ceiling fell, injuring her. The portion which fell was a part of a false ceiling which had been constructed by Conners in early 1971.
Conners had been contacted by Spa in connection with a water condensation problem in the steam room. Connors originally recommended that the ceiling be replaced, but this was rejected by Spa because it was too expensive. Connors then suggested that a slightly slanted false ceiling be built. This plan called for wooden timbers to be attached to the existing tile ceiling. Galvanized lath would then be nailed to the timbers and three coats of plaster applied to the lath. Connors discussed this plan with George Little, maintenance supervisor for Spa, who accepted the plan.
Although Little observed various stages of the construction, he was not regularly present and had no supervisory function. After the ceiling was completed, Little inspected it and found it to be a good job, completely satisfactory, and capable of accomplishing its purpose. From that point until the day of the accident, Little regularly inspected the ceiling, as he did the other ceilings and walls in the Spa, for cracks and for evidence of other damage. Little was especially careful in checking the walls and ceiling prior to the accident because there was construction going on in the adjoining building, and there was concern as to whether it would do any damage to the Spa.
Lubell sued Spa for damages alleging that Spa negligently maintained the ceiling, and that the negligent condition of the ceiling was known by it or had existed for a sufficient length of time that Spa should have known of it. Spa filed a third party complaint against Connors seeking indemnification in the event it was found liable to Lubell. Spa's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all of the evidence in the Lubell trial was denied. The jury resolved both suits against Spa. This appeal resulted.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co.
...205 So.2d 291 (Fla.1967); Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 345 So.2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Here the offending omission from the abstract was no more d......
-
El Shorafa v. Ruprecht, 76-903
...312 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As recently as June 1976, the First District Court of Appeal stated in Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So.2d 298, 299-300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976): 'When an owner accepts work from a contractor, that upon reasonable inspection would reveal a dangerous defect, he ......
-
Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, X-179
...D'Aiuto & Dean, Carle A. Felton, Jr., and Noah H. Jenerette, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee. MILLS, Judge. In Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), we reversed the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Lubell. By its decision in Lubell v. Roman Spa, ......
-
Lubell v. Roman Spa, Inc.
...having been improvidently granted. 1 Wale v. Barnes, 278 So.2d 601, 604 (Fla.1973).2 Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.3 Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So.2d 298 (Fla.App.1976).4 For example, that the Spa didn't take sufficient precaution to protect its patrons when it should have known the coll......