Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, Ltd., DD-199
Decision Date | 20 July 1977 |
Docket Number | No. DD-199,DD-199 |
Citation | 347 So.2d 1100 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | Joseph A. ROSIER and Janice C. Rosier, his wife, Appellants, v. GAINSVILLE INNS ASSOCIATES, LTD., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Gainesville and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, a Foreign Corporation, Respondents. |
Dennis J. Hightower, Whitaker & Koepke, Orlando, for appellants.
W. C. O'Neal, Chandler, O'Neal, Gray & Lang, Gainesville, for respondents.
The Rosiers, plaintiffs in this personal injury action, seek review of a final judgment directing verdict for appellees. We reverse.
The Rosiers attended the University of Florida homecoming weekend in 1974. They were guests at the Gainesville Holiday Inn where they had two rooms, one for their children and one for them. Before retiring for the night, the Rosiers secured their children's room, locked their outside door but did not secure the chain latch. At about 1:30 a. m., they awoke to find a ski-masked burglar in the room at the foot of their bed. Mr. Rosier jumped from the bed and tackled the intruder. A struggle ensued, Mr. Rosier was stabbed twice, though not seriously, and Mrs. Rosier received a shattered right finger before the intruder escaped through the open outside door. While Mrs. Rosier was closing the door, she saw a key on a long leather strap on the floor. Mr. Rosier also saw the key strap. To her horror, Mrs. Rosier then saw the intruder return and as she pushed on the door to keep him out, the intruder snatched the key from the floor and again fled.
This negligence action was then brought. The complaint alleged a breach of duty by the motel in that: (1) A passkey was available to the assailant. (2) The locks provided for the room were inadequate. (3) No security guard was provided.
During the presentation of their case, both Mr. and Mrs. Rosier identified the key strap used by the intruder as identical to keys worn by the motel maids around their necks. A security expert testified on behalf of the Rosiers that the type lock used in the exterior door was the lowest grade, a normal residential lock. He testified the industrywide standard in 1974 was a mortise lock, which when locked from the inside, secured the door with a dead bolt, and could not be opened by a maid's passkey or a duplicate room key. Mortise locks were used in the newer units of the Gainesville Holiday Inn. The motel manager testified passkeys were distributed at the beginning of each day and returned at the end of the day and deposited in a safe overnight. At the time of this incident, no passkeys were missing.
Following the presentation of Rosiers' case, the trial court directed a verdict for appellees. We need only consider one specific allegation of negligence on the part of the Gainesville Holiday Inn to find that a prima facie case has been made.
The court stated the failure by the Gainesville Holiday Inn to use adequate locks could not reasonably be considered the cause of the Rosiers' injuries. He found that since the Rosiers failed to secure the chain latch to the outside door, one could not reasonably assume the Rosiers would have used the dead bolt latch had the mortise lock been available. Such a conclusion could only be reached by the jury. 1 It is clear that upon a motion for directed verdict, all reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, 62...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gress v. Lakhani Hospitality, Inc.
...Dist. Ct. App. 1988) ; Margreiter v. New Hotel Monteleone, Inc. , 640 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1981) ; Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, Ltd. , 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (all involving rape, battery, or other crimes in a hotel room); cf. Bogenberger , 2018 IL 120951, ¶ 46, 42......
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne
...such a finding would not mandate a directed verdict. The traditional rule on intervening cause was stated in Rosier v. Gainsville Inns Assoc., 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977): While the question of proximate cause in a negligence action is one for the court where there is an active and e......
-
Paterson v. Deeb
...506 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, Ltd., 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In each of these cases, reference is made to prior criminal episodes having occurred on the premises or in ......
-
Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc.
...of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. Werndli v. Greyhound Corp., 365 So.2d 177 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Co., 305 So.2d 255 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Cooper v. IBI Security Service of Florida, Inc., 2......
-
Liability for negligently disabling or failing to repair a traffic signal: absolute immunity in the Third District?
...(Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1980); Werndli v. Greyhound Corp., 365 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1978); Rosier v. Gainesville Ins. Associates, Inc., 347 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977); Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Co., 305 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. [2] As the Third District Court itself put it in an earli......
-
$______ GROSS VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - NEGLIGENT SECURITY - PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR PATRONS OF ITS RESTAURANT/BAR RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF BEING ATTACKED WITH GLASS BY PATRON - LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE; PERMANENT FACIAL SCARRING - DEFENDANT DENIES IT COULD HAVE FORESEEN NEED FOR SECURITY AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF PROVOKED ATTACK.
...liability was premised primarily on a history of non-violent incidents). Additionally, Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, Ltd, 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), was a case where foreseeability of assault on plaintiff was established with proof of prior property crime. Hardy v. Pier 99......
-
$______ GROSS VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - NEGLIGENT SECURITY - PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR PATRONS OF ITS RESTAURANT/BAR RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF BEING ATTACKED WITH GLASS BY PATRON - LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE; PERMANENT FACIAL SCARRING - DEFENDANT DENIES IT COULD HAVE FORESEEN NEED FOR SECURITY AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF PROVOKED ATTACK.
...liability was premised primarily on a history of non-violent incidents). Additionally, Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, Ltd , 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), was a case where foreseeability of assault on plaintiff was established with proof of prior property crime. Hardy v. Pier 9......
-
$______ RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - HEAD-ON COLLISION - MULTIPLE FEMUR FRACTURES - TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY - DEFENDANT DENIES NEGLIGENCE AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF NOT WEARING SEATBELT CAUSE OF INJURIES - PARTIES SETTLE VIA MEDIATION PRIOR TO TRIAL.
...liability was premised primarily on a history of non-violent incidents). Additionally, Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, Ltd, 347 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), was a case where foreseeability of assault on plaintiff was established with proof of prior property crime. Hardy v. Pier 99......