Storr v. Proctor, 85-1922
| Decision Date | 03 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1922,85-1922 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1258 Cecil STORR, Appellant, v. Nadine PROCTOR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Keyfetz, Poses & Halpern and Andrea R. Baron, Miami, for appellant.
Hoppe & Backmeyer and Thomas Backmeyer, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Nadine Proctor employed her ex-husband, Cecil Storr to build her a patio. Storr worked in construction and had 25 years experience in the field. Pursuant to their agreement, Proctor was to furnish all the materials to be used in constructing the patio. To this end she furnished Storr with a roll of wire mesh which she had stored in the open for about 1 1/2 years. The roll of wire was rusty, but Storr seeing nothing wrong with it, other than some rust, proceeded to unroll the wire. While he was doing so one of the wire mesh strands broke loose and recoiled striking Storr in his leg, causing a puncture wound which ultimately became infected. Thereafter, Storr brought the instant action seeking damages. Issue was joined and after the depositions of the parties were taken Proctor moved for a summary judgment. The trial court entered a final summary judgment for Proctor and the instant appeal ensued. We affirm.
The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be known to him. Hickory House v. Brown, 77 So.2d 249 (Fla.1955); Messner v. Webb's City, 62 So.2d 66 (Fla.1952).
An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger. Melton v. Estes, 379 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
It is well settled that the property owners knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of the invitee in order to create a duty to warn of dangers unknown to the invitee. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Somers v. Meyers, 171 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Quinnelly v. Southern Maid Syrup Co., 164 So.2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
We find nothing in the instant case to establish any legal liability on the part of Proctor for the very obvious reason that Storr, a man experienced in this type of construction, admitted that he made a visual inspection of the wire which appeared sound to him. If it appeared sound to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwab v. United States
...a latent peril, it was one which decedent either knew or should have known in the exercise of due care. See generally, Storr v. Proctor, 490 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In addition, the contract warns that handling of the property may be hazardous and that the purchaser must obtain all fa......
-
La Villarena, Inc. v. Acosta
...Messner v. Webb's City, Inc., 62 So.2d 66 (Fla.1952); Westchester Exxon v. Valdes, 524 So.2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Storr v. Proctor, 490 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So.2d 546 (Fla.1986); Emmons v. Baptist Hosp., 478 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 67 (F......
-
McAllister v. Robbins, 87-1103
...knowledge was equal with that of the defendants. 1 City of Milton v. Broxson, 514 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Storr v. Proctor, 490 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 500 So.2d 546 (Fla.1986); Emmons v. Baptist Hospital, Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED. WENTWORTH, ......
-
Houk v. Monsanto Co., 92-502
...3d DCA 1989) (domestic employee could not recover from owner for injuries resulting from slipping on paper on stairs); Storr v. Proctor, 490 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3rd DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 546 (Fla.1986) (landowner not responsible for injuries to construction worker occurring when wire m......