Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1952 |
| Citation | 60 So.2d 28 |
| Parties | STAFF et al. v. SORENO HOTEL CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Carroll R. Runyon, W. Furman Betts, Jr., Henry Esteva of Holland, Betts & Esteva, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Barton, Saltsman & Enwright and Mann, Harrison & Stone, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
The appellant-wife sued the appellee, owner and operator of a hotel, for damages sustained when she fell on a floor that was alleged to have been 'dangerously slippery' and not reasonably safe for the use of herself as a guest. The appellant-husband joined in the action to recover for the loss of the companionship, society, services and consortium of his wife. Issue was formed by pleas of general issue and contributory negligence.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
All four questions now posed for consideration and determination by this court involved the propriety of charges to the jury.
Appellants first complain about what they call a 'misstatement of the pleadings' made by the court to the jury by injecting into the case, gratuitously, a third defense, when but two of the pleas interposed by the defendant remained at the time of trial.
We, of course, do not subscribe to the proposition that a court may mislead a jury in outlining the issues that body is to try, but we must, before we disturb the judgment, determine that the charge assailed, considered by itself and also in connection with the whole charge, was erroneous and harmful as well.
The appellants contend that the judge introduced on his own account 'a third and special defense * * *' by drawing the jury's attention to "its (meaning defendant, Soreno Hotel Company) statement that the conditions prevailing on the floor at the time and place was the general condition all over the hotel and that are generally used and was not a dangerous condition * * *." The quotation is from appellants' brief; the underscoring was supplied by its author.
Out of context it mgith appear that the reference to the nature of the floors in other parts of the hotal actually became a defense, and we may say this portion could well have been omitted; but we are not convinced that it was injurious to plaintiffs' case.
In the first place this part of the charge was prefaced by a fair and accurate analysis of the plaintiffs' claims as given in their pleading. There followed immediately the language: 'The defenses filed by the hotel convey general denial of the negligence which occasions a burden of proof upon the plaintiffs in the first instance * * *'; here in the same sentence appeared the challenged language we have quoted from appellants' brief, except the parentheses, and the sentence was closed with the words: 'and the third plea that Mrs. Staff's own negligence caused the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. M. Kidder & Co. v. Turner
...of proof as to defendant's affirmative defenses. The rule applicable to this contention was set forth in the case of Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co., Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 28: '* * * we must, before we disturb the judgment, determine that the charge assailed, considered by itself and also in connect......
-
Grimm v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
...(1945); Dowling v. Loftin, 72 So.2d 283 (Fla.1954); General Ready-Mixed Concrete v. Wheeler, 55 So.2d 331 (Fla.1951); Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co., 60 So.2d 28 (Fla.1952); Martin v. Stone, 51 So.2d 33 (Fla.1951); Diecidue v. State, 131 So.2d 7 (Fla.1961). The District Court should have applied......
-
Department of Corrections v. Hill
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (same); Lafleur v. Castlewood International Corp., 294 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (same); see also Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co., 60 So.2d 28 (Fla.1952) (court may not mislead a jury in outlining the issues that body is to try); and these instructions tended to confuse rath......
-
Dowling v. Loftin
...aside. It is our duty to examine not one but all of the charges. F.S § 54.23 F.S.A.; Martin v. Stone, Fla., 51 So.2d 33; Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co., Fla., 60 So.2d 28; General Ready-Mix Concrete v. Wheeler, Fla., 55 So.2d In the case at Bar it may be that the charges requested by the appella......